OFFICIAL REPORT.



The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair,

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Ebbw Vale Urban District Council Bill, Great Eastern Railway Bill,

Read the third time, and passed.

Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,

Read the third time, and passed.

Land Drainage (Ouse) Provisional Order Bill (by Order),

Second Beading deferred till Tuesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

MACHINE GUN CORPS (EDWARD M'EACHAN).

Mr. N. MACLEAN: 1.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Edward M'Eachan, No. 34,626, Machine Gun Corps, has been granted a pension of 8d. per day for disability due to sciatica; whether on his identity certificate it is described as service pension; whether letters asking for an explanation have received no reply; and whether he can state if this is the full pension this ex-soldier is to receive after serving his country for 19 years and 12 days?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): This soldier was discharged in September, 1917, for sciatica, which was accepted as attributable to service. He was originally granted a disability pension on the basis of 30 per cent. disablement, but on his re-examination in November last he was found to be so far improved in health as to be no longer pensionable under Ministry Warrants In view, however, of
his Colour service of nearly 133/4 years, he will receive a pension of 8d. a day under Article 1163 of the Pay Warrant of 1914.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

DAMAGED ROADS.

Major O'NEILL: 4.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware of the serious state of the roads in many parts of Ireland owing to the heavy commercial motor traffic upon them, and can he say what funds, if any, are available for their repair in addition to those provided by the local authorities out of the rates?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): I have been asked to answer this question. I am aware that some roads in Ireland have suffered from abnormal traffic due to War conditions, and contributions towards the repair of these roads have been made by the Government Departments responsible for the traffic. Taking Irish roads as a whole, I am not prepared to admit that there is any marked deterioration as compared with their condition before the War. Practically all the highway authorities in Ireland are engaged upon the completion of works towards which grants have been made during the current financial year from the Road Improvement Fund. Nearly all the available moneys from this source have now been allocated, and it will not be possible to make additional grants until further provision is made by Parliament.

Commander Viscount CURZON: May I ask whether that answer, in so far as it concerns contributions by Government Departments for the repair of special damage to roads, applies to England as well as to Ireland?

Mr. NEAL: I believe it does.

Major O'NEILL: Is any legislation in contemplation in the direction indicated by the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. NEAL: That is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Finance Act.

CATTLE DRIVING.

Mr. JELLETT: 6.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the cattle of
Lieutenant Henry Roe, late South Irish Horse, who served throughout the War, have been recently five times driven off his farm at Rathmore, Queen's County, in such a manner as to render them unsaleable; and whether he will afford this gentleman military protection for his stock so as to prevent his being compelled to give up his farm?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Macpherson): The facts are generally as stated. Seven persons have been sentenced to three months' imprisonment for taking part in one of the raids. The police force in the district has been strengthened, and every protection will be afforded to this gentleman.

Mr. JELLETT: 7.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the cattle of Mr. Peter Roe, auctioneer, Borris-in-Ossory, Queen's County, have been recently several times driven off his farm in Curraghmore, Queen's County; whether he has been and is being prevented from doing his business as an auctioneer by a system of organised and open intimidation; and what steps he proposes to take to put a stop to this system of persecution?

Mr. MACPHERSON: The cattle of this gentleman were on two occasions recently driven off his farm, and twelve persons were sentenced to three months' imprisonment in connection therewith. On the 10th inst. Mr. Roe was prevented by an organised crowd, with bands, from holding an auction, and the question of proceedings being taken is under consideration. An extra force of police has been transferred to the district for the protection of this gentleman's farm and property, and to afford him any protection necessary.

MURDER OF LORD MAYOR OF CORK.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 8.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has any information with regard to the murderers of Alderman Thomas McCurtain, Lord Mayor of Cork; whether the murderers are believed to have belonged, or to belong, to any political organisation; whether following the crime Alderman McCurtain's house was entered and searched by the military and police; if so, what was the reason for this
action; and whether any arrests have been made in connection with the murder?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I have so far not been able to obtain information with regard to the first two parts of the question. Acting on orders received, a party of police and military proceeded to the house in question, and it was only after the officer in charge had been admitted that he learnt of the tragedy which had so recently taken place. The officer in charge carried out his orders to search the house, and in doing so was facilitated in every way by the occupants of the house. No arrests have yet been made.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether the persons who gave the orders for the search of the house were ignorant of the murder?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot say that. The orders were given by the competent military authority.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not able to inform us whether the orders were given before the murder, or afterwards?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I did not understand my hon. and gallant Friend to ask that. If he puts down a specific question I will make inquiry.

LETTERS (REPUBLICAN FRANK).

Mr. JELLETT: 9.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that letters are now being delivered in Dublin bearing a republican frank; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I have seen one such envelope. I am bringing the matter to the notice of the Postmaster-General.

LABOURERS' COTTAGES.

Major O'NEILL: 11.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether there is at present any statutory means whereby the occupants of cottages under the Labourers' (Ireland) Act can purchase their holdings by instalments?

Mr. MACPHERSON: The answer is in the negative.

Major O'NEILL: Does not the Small Dwellings Purchase Act apply, and would it not be possible to introduce some provision
in the forthcoming Land Purchase Act which might cover these labourers' cottages?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am informed there is at present no statutory authority. I will look into the last part of the question and see whether it is possible.

ALDERMAN WILLIAM O'BRIEN (ARREST).

Mr. W. R. SWITH: 13.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in connection with the arrest of Alderman William O'Brien, he is aware that two witnesses have stated that, at 7.30 on the morning of 4th March, they saw Alderman O'Brien in a military wagon standing with his hands over his head stretched to their fullest extent and obviously in pain; that, shortly after the wagon passed, two colleagues of these witnesses mentioned that they too had seen Alderman O'Brien with his hands fastened above his head; and whether, in view of these statements, he will have inquiries made of Alderman O'Brien in order to ascertain the truth?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave on the 11th inst to the question on this subject addressed to me by my hon. Friend. There is no foundation for the allegation that the alderman was treated in the manner suggested.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman state what is the present state of health of Mr. William O'Brien?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Alderman O'Brien is at present on hunger strike.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What is the state of his health?

Mr. J. JONES: If he had been a prisoner in Germany he would have been better treated.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House when it is likely that this man will be brought to trial, and what is the charge against him?

Mr. MOLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether these questions are put for the purpose of influencing votes at Stockport?

Mr. J. JONES: We cannot.

Mr. MACPHERSON: With regard to the first part of the question, I have nothing to add to what has been said. Alderman O'Brien was deported under the Defense of the Realm Regulations. There is no intention of bringing him to trial.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I could not hear the right hon. Gentleman's reply as to the state of Mr. O'Brien's health.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will see it in the papers.

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, before the passing of the Government of Ireland Bill, he will consider submitting this Measure, with other alternatives, to a referendum of the Irish people, or by any other means obtaining the opinion and wishes of the Irish electorate?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): I am not prepared to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.

JAPAN (POLITICAL SITUATION).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 15.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any fresh information regarding the political situation in Japan?

The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Harmsworth): The answer is in the negative.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION GEANTS.

Mr. W. THORNE: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that, in consequence of the Board of Education fixing 48d. as the prescribed amount under Article 6 (2) of the Regulations for substantive grant of public elementary education, it will make a difference in the Borough of West Ham of £53,000 per annum, which is equivalent to a 10½d. rate; whether he can state that any other district in the different parts of the country will be affected to the same extent; and whether it is the intention of the Board of Education to alter the Regulations so as to enable the various local
authorities to receive the same proportion of grants as granted before the new Regulations were made?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Fisher): I am doubtful whether my hon. Friend's calculation is correct. But I shall be glad to look into the figures on which the calculation is based if my hon. Friend will furnish me with them.

Sir E. WILD: Will the right hon. Gentleman receive a deputation on that subject.

Mr. FISHER: indicated assent
.

BICYCLES (REAR LIGHTS).

Major BIRCHALL: 19.
asked the Home Secretary under which Regulation bicycles are required to carry rear lights and when such Regulation expires; and whether he is aware that this Regulation is causing unnecessary annoyance to more than three million cyclists?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Major Baird): The Order under which rear lights are to be carried is the Lights (Vehicles) Order of 30th September, 1919. The Order is retained pending regulation which, I understand, is under consideration by my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Transport.

POLICE (PAY AND PENSIONS).

Mr. CAIRNS: 20.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the watch committee of Wallasey refuse to pay the amount of back pay due to ex-Constable E. T. Jones, who was dismissed in August last for withdrawing his services; and whether, in view of the fact that all other police authorities have long since paid the amounts due to the other men dismissed, he will make representations to the Wallasey watch committee with a view to the reconsideration of their decision?

Major BAIRD: The matter rests with the police authority, and my right hon. Friend does not see his way to intervene.

Mr. HURD: 21.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called
to the case of Police pensioner Philemore Pippen, of Brislington, Bristol, who had a good record during 24 years' service in the Somerset police force; was invalided out in 1904, and has an invalid wife and three children; has been unable to do any regular work since owing to chronic bronchitis; is now expected to keep himself and family on 12s. 10½d. a week; and whether this is one of the hard cases for which immediate consideration has teen promised?

Major BAIRD: The attention of the Home Office has not been previously called to this case. A Cabinet Committee is now considering whether any relief can be given from public funds in such cases.

Mr. HURD: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that full details of this case have been put before the Home Office and have been preliminarily turned down, and may I ask whether, in a case of this sort, after 24 years' service, an ex-police pensioner is asked to live and keep his family, a chronic invalid himself, on 12s. 10½d. a week, and whether it does not call for urgent attention?

Major BAIRD: My information was that the case had not been brought to the attention of the Home Office. I will look further into it. Obviously, it is of the nature of case for which a Cabinet Committee has been set up.

Colonel Sir J. REMNANT: May I ask whether a case similar to this is to be considered a hard case?

Major BAIRD: That is, I think, a matter for the Cabinet Committee?

Mr. BILLING: Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Head of his Department to arrange to make these cases retrospective in the event of the finding being in their favour, and so enable some of these men to get out of debt?

Major BAIRD: I do not think I can add anything to what was said by my right hon. Friend in Debate, namely, that he would see what could be done to meet these cases.

Mr. RAFFAN: Do the Cabinet Committee propose to deal with individual cases one by one, or are they endeavouring to arrive at some general principle applicable to certain categories of cases?

Major BAIRD: I am afraid I cannot answer that question.

Sir J. REMNANT: 39.
asked the Prime Minister if he can now state the decision of his Committee as to the relief to be given to the old (previous to 1st April, 1919) police pensioners who are in necessitous circumstances owing to the increase in the cost of living?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am unable to make any statement on the subject, as the Cabinet Committee has not yet reported.

Sir J. REMNANT: May I ask whether we are likely to get any decision before Easter; and may I further ask whether on the matters referred to this Committee such a csae as that mentioned in question No. 21, and to which I hope the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called, and which has been turned down by the Home Secretary as a case practically that cannot be dealt with as a hard case, will come before the Committee; and whether the right hon. Gentleman is of opinion that 12s. 10½d. per week is sufficient for a family to live on?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman had better give notice of some of that question.

Sir J. REMNANT: On a point of Order. The question is already down on the Paper.

Mr. SPEAKER: In a question to the Prime Minister the hon. Gentleman calls attention to a question put by somebody else, and asks what is the Prime Minister's view about certain matters, and so on and so on, which he cannot really be expected to answer without notice.

Sir J. REMNANT: I apologise to you, Sir, for appearing to argue against your ruling. What I sought to ask was, as the right hon. Gentleman has so often said that hard cases should be dealt with, whether a case of 12s. 10½d. per week for a whole family to live on, with two invalids and three children, would be one of the hard cases.

Mr. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of a question of that sort dealing with details.

Mr. RAFFAN: May I ask whether the Cabinet Committee are really considering
individual hard cases, or whether they are considering categories of cases?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, they are considering the whole problem with a view to arriving at some definite principle which can be applied.

Sir J. REMNANT: Shall we have a decision before Easter?

The PRIME MINISTER: I understand the Committee are working very hard, and it is not a very easy decision to come to, but I can assure my hon. Friend there is no time being wasted.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

LAND SETTLEMENT, IRELAND.

Major O'NEILL: 12.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Broughshane, Co. Antrim, part of the Comrades of the Great War have applied for grants of land under the Irish Land (Provision for Sailors and Soldiers) Act, 1919, for certain ex-service men; whether the Local Government Board have replied that the grants cannot be given; whether there is suitable land available in the vicinity; and what steps it is proposed to take to furnish the applicants with land under the Act?

Mr. MACPHERSON: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Local Government Board are advised that they are not authorised by the Irish Land (Provision for Sailors and Soldiers) Act, 1919, to provide allotments for men who served in the War where the necessity for a cottage does not exist. The Secretary to the Comrades of the Great War, Broughshane, was informed that the Board had no power to entertain the application, attention being at the same time directed to the powers of the Estates Commissioners under the Act, to provide small holdings for men who served in the War.

Major O'NEILL: Does the statement made on the Second Reading of the Act, namely, that there was sufficient land for all ex-service men who applied for it, still hold good?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Certainly it does. I understand the point is whether the Local Government Board has power to provide the land. The Local Government
Board provides houses. The Estates Commissioners are the body to provide the land.

TECHNICAL TRAINING.

Mr. G. W. H. JONES: 42.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in the twelve special trades for which local technical advisory committees have been appointed under the Ministry of Labour scheme for training disabled sailors and soldiers, upwards of 400,000 persons were employed before the War within the London area; whether for the same area only about 3,500 disabled sailors and soldiers are allowed to be trained per annum for such trades under the scheme'; whether the smallness of this number is due to restrictions imposed by the local technical advisory committees; whether he will inform the House of the nature of such restrictions in the several trades and to what influences they are due; whether over 5,000 disabled sailors and soldiers within the said area are waiting for training in these trades under the scheme; and what steps he proposes to take to remove these restrictions as to number so as to enable these men to enjoy the advantage of training under the said scheme.

Lieut.-Colonel GILMOUR: I have been asked to reply to this question. The number of special trades for which local technical advisory committees have been set up in London is 17, and, according to the 1911 census, the number of persons employed in these trades within the London area was about 318,000. Such restrictions as exist in the London area and elsewhere are often necessary in the interests of the men themselves to prevent the overcrowding of any particular trade and the training of men in trades for which they are not suitable, with consequent unemployment. The number of ex-service men applying for training in the special trades in London appears to be about 3,000. Should it appear that any local technical advisory committee is unreasonably restricting the number of men for training, the Department would take the question up with the Committee and with the national advisory committee for the trade in question.

SMALL HOLDINGS (GRANTS).

Mr. SITCH: 51.
asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will state the grounds upon which the Government arrived at the decision that grants shall not be paid to disabled
men acquiring land or small holdings under a county council scheme; whether this sets aside the provisions of the Military Service (Civil Liabilities) Act established to assist men unable to resume their pre-war occupations; does he realise that, unless a grant is available for such ex-service men, none will be able to procure land unless they possess private means; whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction produced by the decision referred to among many who have already been accepted as suitable applicants for small holdings and that, in the absence of anticipated financial assistance, it will be impossible to establish many men in this most suitable occupation; and can he see his way to reconsider the decision, with the view to avoiding suffering and hardship among many deserving of every consideration and assistance from the State for services rendered?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): It has been decided that assistance may be given under the Civil Liabilities Scheme, 1918, to applicants acquiring land under a County Council Scheme subject to the same considerations as apply in other cases. I should add that the scheme is not governed by an Act, as suggested by the hon. Member, but by Treasury Regulations.

DISABLED MEN (UNEMPLOYMENT).

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 82.
asked the Minister of Labour how many ex-service men are unemployed in England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales, respectively; and how many in each case are disabled men?

Lieut.-Colonel GILMOUR: At 12th March, 1920, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 207,396 ex-service men in receipt of out-of-work donation in England, 25,064 in Scotland, 22,884 in Ireland, and 7,318 in Wales. At the same date there were on the registers of the Employment Exchanges 19,374 disabled ex-service men in England, 4,477 in Scotland, 4,026 in Ireland, and 918 in Wales.

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT.

Mr. ALFRED DAVIES (Clitheroe): 84.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has received a resolution from the Grays employment committee urging the Department to press upon the Civil Service Commissioners the claims of disabled
ex-serviee men over 25 years of age now rendering efficient service on the temporary staff of the Department for admission to the established staff; that, for admission purposes, the age of such men be taken as at the date of their joining such temporary staff and not at the actual date of the examination, and that the maximum age be raised at least to the maximum permissible to women, namely, 30 years of age; and whether he will give this matter his consideration.

Lieut.-Colonel GILMOUR: My right hon. Friend is aware that the resolution referred has been received from the Grays' Employment Committee, and that similar resolutions have also been passed by employment committees in other parts of the country. I am informed that the whole question of the establishment of temporary staffs in Government Departments is now under the consideration of the National Whitley Council for the Civil Service, and, until he has seen its report, my right hon. Friend is not prepared to make any recommendations on the subject.

RE-SETTLEMENT UPON LAND.

Mr. ALFRED SHORT: 86.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture whether he can state the number of ex-service men who have been re-settled upon the land?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir ROBERT SANDERS (Lord of the Treasury): According to the latest information in possession of the Ministry the number of ex-service men settled on the land is as follows:—

On estates of county councils and county boroughs
4,372


On the Ministry's farm settlements
454


Total
4,826

A considerable area of land will come into possession of county councils this Lady Day, and it is, therefore, expected that the number of men settled will be materially increased in the course of a few weeks.

Mr. SHORT: In view of the very small number that have been resettled I would like to ask if there are any trade union Regulations standing in the way?

Mr. RAFFAN: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman say how many soldiers have applied for small holdings whose applications are still unsatisfied?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise.

Captain REDMOND: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman's answer apply only to this country or to Ireland as well?

Sir R. SANDERS: I must ask for Notice.

UNCERTIFIABLE CASES.

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: 2.
asked the Pensions Minister how many sanatoria are provided by his Department for the benefit of uncertifiable border-line cases of loss of mental balance occurring among ex-soldiers as distinguished from neurasthenics of a psuedo-paralytic type; where are they situated; what accommodation do they furnish; and are facilities afforded for interesting occupations for the purpose of promoting an early return to the conditions of industrial life?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Colonel Sir James Craig): Eighteen institutions, providing 2,046 beds, have been set up by the Ministry to deal with the cases described. They are situated at Edinburgh, Shotley Bridge, Leeds (2), Altrincham, Woolton, Stockport, Leicester, Maidenhead, Bath, Exeter, Orpington, Tooting, Denmark Hill, Roehampton, Chepstow, Craigend, and Leopardstown.
Further institutions are in course of preparation. Occupational training has been provided at the majority of these homes, and, at the remainder, is being instituted as rapidly as possible.
Accommodation in the Treatment and Training centres will also be available for the convalescent cases which still require treatment and training. There are in addition clinics at Lancaster Gate, Manchester, and elsewhere, where out-patient treatment is given for the milder type of neurasthenic, such as the pseudo-paralytic type.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

PEACE NEGOTIATIONS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 14.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether negotiations for
peace have been commenced between the White Russian forces, including the volunteer army, in South Russia and the Soviet Government of Russia; if so, whether His Majesty's Government is represented at these negotiations; whether negotiations have commenced between the volunteer army leaders and the Republics of Georgia and Azerbaijan; and whether His Majesty's representatives in the Caucasus are using their good offices to bring about peace between the various opposing forces?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part does not, therefore, arise. As regards the third part, according to the latest reports, General Denikin has entered into negotiations with the Georgian Government, and has expressed his willingness to negotiate similarly with the Azerbaijan Government. As regards the fourth part, it has always been the constant endeavour of His Majesty's representatives in the Caucasus to foster good relations between the various neighbouring Governments.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman referring to the representative of the Foreign Office or of the War Office?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I think the representative of the Foreign Office. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give me notice of that?

COMMISSIONS OF INVESTIGATION.

Mr. ALLEN PARKINSON: 28.
asked the Prime Minister whether the names of the commissions of investigation into the Russian situation, appointed by the Council of the League of Nations and by the international labour section, can now be announced; and when it is hoped that these commissions will proceed to Russia?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I must refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Stoke-on-Trent and to the hon. Member for Kettering on the 23rd instant.

Lieut. - Commander KEN WORTHY: Will those names be given to the House of Commons in any way for approval?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I do not think so. They are being selected by the Council of the League of Nations.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Have we any sort of say in the matter? [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]

STAFFORD ASSIZES (MANSLAUGHTER CASE).

Mr. BROMFIELD: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the neglect to call important medical evidence at the trial of Arthur Barker, lately sentenced at the Stafford Assies to four months' imprisonment for manslaughter, whereby a miscarriage of justice would appear to have taken place, he will cause this expert evidence to be taken prior to giving his decision respecting the appeal made to him for a revision of the sentence?

Major BAIRD: My right hon. Friend has gone very carefully into this case and can find no ground which would justify him in interfering.

EAST AFRICAN PROTECTORATE (SEGREGATION OF RACES BILL).

Mr. BROMFIELD: 24.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received protests from Indians in the East African Protectorate and elsewhere against the Segregation of Races Bill; and whether ho will instruct the Government of the Protectorate not to proceed with the Bill in view of the effect that such a measure will have on Indian sentiment throughout the Empire?

The UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut. - Colonel Amery): I would invite the hon. Member's attention to my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme on the 18th of March.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

TRADE UNION REGULATIONS.

Major BARNES: 25.
asked the Prime Minister if he can state what relaxation of regulations by the trade unions would increase the number of skilled workmen as distinct from unskilled workmen, and within what period of time such relaxation would become effective in increasing the number of bricklayers, carpenters, joiners, plumbers, and painters, giving the estimated period in each case?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the statement circulated in reply to the question put by the hon. Member for Spen Valley on the 22nd instant, which enumerates the trade practices, the relaxation of which by trade unions would lead to an increase in the number of skilled men in the building industry. Opinions differ with regard to the period of time required to make an appreciable increase by such means, but there is no doubt that the course would accelerate very considerably the restoration of the industry to its pre-war numerical strength.

Major BARNES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if there is going to be any attempt made to have a conference with the trade unions in order to arrive at a satisfactory settlement?

The PRIME MINISTER: I believe there was a conference for about four hours yesterday on the subject.

Mr. J. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the facts which were produced at that conference and is he now prepared to withdraw the charges made against trade unions?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, I certainly am not. Naturally I do not want to make charges at a time when we are endeavouring to remove difficulties. I certainly am not prepared to withdraw anything.

Mr. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the trade unions produced evidence to demonstrate that the charges which you made originally are not true.

The PRIME MINISTER: No. I know perfectly well the figures which were laid before the conference, but that does not in the least remove what I pointed out. I am very hopeful something will be done to induce trade unions to assist.

Mr. W. THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to read the report of yesterday's proceedings when it is printed, and he will find out for himself the true facts?

Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Having regard to the fact that these houses are needed for the working classes, will he make an appeal to the trade unions to treat the housing question in this country
the same as they did the general production of war material during the War?

Mr. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to stop the building of all luxury buildings?

The PRIME MINISTER: We have already passed a Bill authorising local authorities to stop all luxury building in their areas.

Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware—

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot pursue this Debate now.

RENT RESTRICTIONS BILL (BUSINESS PREMISES).

Mr. BRIGGS: 43.
asked the Prime Minister if he will consider the advisability of introducing into the new Rent Restrictions Bill some protection for business premises as well as dwelling-houses?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): The question whether it would be practicable to extend the operation of the Rent Restrictions Acts to business premises is being considered by the Committee which is now sitting, and I cannot make any statement upon this question in anticipation of the Committee's report.

Mr. BRIGGS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will show consideration to those small shopkeepers who are finding themselves in a very difficult position owing to the sale or letting of their premises over their heads?

Dr. ADDISON: I know the Committee have been giving most careful consideration to the whole case.

Oral Answers to Questions — HIGH PRICES.

Major BARNES: 26.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the continued increase in prices and the cost of living, he will say if the Government are satisfied with the steps they have taken or are taking to lower prices and the cost of living, or, if not, if they propose to take any further steps; and, if so, what steps they propose to take?

The PRIME MINISTER: The high level of prices and of the cost of living is largely due to conditions arising out
of the War, over which the Government have no direct control, and which can only be remedied by increased production, and by personal and national economy. His Majesty's Government anticipate that national revenue will cover national expenditure in next financial year, and that substantial reductions in debt will be effected. There is no short cut to lower prices, which can only result from a steadily pursued policy. In the meantime, the machinery of the Profiteering Act is operating to prevent the exploitation of the present situation by individuals, and the Government has under consideration whether some strengthening of the Act or of its administration would or would not be advisable. The Government is of the opinion that any attempt to exercise a rigid control over prices would prove damaging to all classes, in the long run, by checking the recovery of the country from the effects of the War.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman take further steps to bring about peace in Central Europe, especially in the case of Poland and Russia, with a view to freeing the markets and bringing down prices?

The PRIME MINISTER: I should be very glad to see peace, not only in Central Europe, but all over the world, both at home and abroad—

Captain REDMOND: And Ireland?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, in Ireland too. All we can do is to encourage production in this country.

Mr. RENWICK: May I ask if the Government is taking any steps to induce our Colonies and foreign countries to supply us with food and other necessary products, and to reduce their prices to us?

Mr. J. JONES: Will the shipowners reduce their freights?

Sir W. DAVISON: 44.
asked the Prime Minister if he can now state whether, in view of the prevailing ignorance on the part of the general public as to the causes for the existing high prices resulting in national unrest, and having regard to the urgent need for the co-operation of all classes in securing frugal living and increased production, he will issue in a concise form the Report of the Supreme Council of the League of Nations on the
economic conditions of the world, and their recommendations as to the methods by which normal conditions may most quickly be re-established, so that the same may be available for Members for distribution among their contituents?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have already arranged that the manifesto issued by the Supreme Council in regard to the economic condition in Europe shall be laid as a White Paper. The paper was presented yesterday and I hope that it will be in the hands of hon. Members shortly. I am also considering what means can be adopted to give the document as wide publicity as possible.

Mr. BILLING: Will it be possible to publish it at a penny on the general book stores?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is one of the suggestions I have considered this morning.

Mr. RENWICK: Can the right hon. Gentleman take any steps to explain to the public that the high prices which are charged to this country for wheat and other produce which we require from abroad are the main cause of the high prices prevailing?

Mr. J. JONES: Will he also undertake to publish the part played by the shipowners since de-control?

Oral Answers to Questions — HUNGARY.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 29.
asked the Prime Minister if he has instructed His Majesty's High Commissioner in Hungary to visit the internment camps for people suspected of communism; and, if not, whether he will instruct the High Commissioner to visit these camps and report upon the conditions prevailing?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. There is no present intention of adopting the suggestion made in the second part of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — GUN INVENTION.

Viscount CURZON: 30.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the Report that a gun having a range of from 100 to 150 miles has been invented by a M. Delaman-Maze; whether
the French Government, after exhaustive tests, has purchased the patents; and, if so, Whether His Majesty's Government are taking steps to inquire into the merits of the invention with a view to taking similar action if desirable?

The PRIME MINISTER: The War Office is in close touch with the French authorities and with the inventor in this matter, and experiments are now proceeding.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES (FUEL).

Viscount CURZON: 31.
asked the Prime Minister what steps His Majesty's Government are taking, or propose to take, to encourage and facilitate the use of alternative fuels and sources of supply of fuel for use in internal combustion engines, with a view to lowering the present high cost of such fuel.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridge-man): I have been asked to reply, and can at present add nothing to the answer which I gave to a question asked by the hon. Member for the Barnstaple Division on the 22nd March.

Viscount CURZON: Are we to understand from the reply of the Government that the Government will take no steps whatever in the matter?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, Sir. If he will read the reply to which I have referred he will see that we are engaged in doing everything we can to try and produce other kinds of fuel possible to use.

Mr. BILLING: Surely the Government can bring some pressure to bear on certain Members of this House who are closely associated with the control of petrol in this country, and the Government?

Oral Answers to Questions — DOMINION OF CANADA.

WASHINGTON (DIPLOMATIC STATUS.)

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: 32.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to appoint a minister plenipotentiary to represent the Dominion of Canada at Washington; and, if so, will he define the duties and powers of the Canadian Minister
and the position that he will occupy vis-à-vis the British Ambassador.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 48.
asked the Prime Minister what information has been received in connection with the suggested appointment of a Canadian Minister to Washington; and whether any specific name has been put forward in that connection?

The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that I am not yet in a position to add anything to the reply which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kincardine and Western Aberdeen on Thursday last.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

TURKEY.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: 33.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in arranging the terms of Peace to be imposed upon Turkey, it will be made a condition that the thousands of Christian women and girls now retained against their will in Turkish harems shall be set at liberty and restored to places of safety?

The PRIME MINISTER: The problem of the Christian women and girls who may have been retained against their will in Turkish households has been considered during the discussions regarding the Treaty.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: 36.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can now inform the House what progress has been made with measures for the protection of the lives of the subject races in Asiatic Turkey, particularly of those who fought on the side of this country during the late War?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to answers given on 17th March to questions on this subject by my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and by my hon. Friend himself.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any further information on the subject?

BONDS (SALES).

Sir A. FELL: 41.
asked the Prime Minister if Germany is entitled under the Peace Treaty to sell, either directly or indirectly through other countries, upon the London market quantities of bonds
and securities which depress both the markets of the bonds sold and the other markets; and what steps he proposes to take to put an end to this practice if it should prove in fact to prevail extensively?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): Securities relating to property rights and interests within His Majesty's Dominions or Protectorates of German nationals at the date of the coming into force of the Treaty have to be delivered by Germany to this country or to the Dominions, as the case may be, within six months of that date. Such securities are charged by Article XVI of the Peace Treaty Order, 1919, and dealings in them in this country are prohibited. The sale of neutral securities held abroad at the coming into force of the Treaty by Germans is not illegal, and provides a most useful and necessary source out of which, without resort to borrowing in any form in this country or elsewhere, Germany can pay for food and raw materials and place herself in a position to fulfil her obligations under the Reparation Clauses of the Peace Treaty.

BRITISH ARMY OF OCCUPATION (GERMANY).

Mr. GILBERT: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether the German Government has paid to the Allies the cost of the Army of Occupation or if any part of the money is still owing to the British authorities; and, if so, if he will state how much, and what steps are being taken to secure the amount?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Apart from certain payments in local currency for the use of the occupying forces, no payments have yet been made by the German Government in respect of the cost of the British Army of Occupation. The amount of the British claim is approximately £46,000,000 up to the 31st instant. The question is being dealt with by the Reparation Commission on behalf of the Allies.

MILNER COMMISSION (REPORT).

Mr. LUNN: 37.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Report of the Milner Commission to Egypt has yet been received; and when it will be published?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: As I stated in the reply to a question put on Tuesday by the hon. Member for East Leyton, the Report of the Milner Commission has not yet been received by the Government.

VATICAN (BRITISH MISSION).

Captain BOWYER: 40.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will state what decision has been arrived at with regard to the maintenance of the British Mission to the Vatican; and what this Mission has cost from the 31st March, 1919, to date?

The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to the first part of the question, I must refer my hon. and gallant Friend to a statement which I made in the House on this subject on March 22nd. The total cost of the Mission to the Vatican from April 1st to September 30th, 1919—the latest date up to which complete accounts have been rendered—amounted to £2,196 10s. 10d.

Mr. J. JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform us what is the cost of the Mission to Berlin in the meantime?

LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Sir J. BUTCHER: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will state to what Minister questions as to the decisions and actions of the League of Nations should be addressed?

The PRIME MINISTER: Questions on this subject should be addressed to the Lord President of the Council and, in his absence, to the Prime Minister.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On which day will the Lord President of the Council be prepared to answer?

PROFITEERING ACT.

Mr. ALFRED SHORT: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the Reports of Committees appointed under the Profiteering Act; whether such Reports indicate that profiteering is taking place; and, if so, what action, if any, does he propose to take?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have been asked to reply. The Reports made by the Sub-Committees appointed by the Central Committee under the Profiteering Act,
many of which raise difficult questions which do not admit of a decision being given off-hand, are receiving the most careful consideration. While one or two Reports suggest that there has been profiteering, the Committees have in a number of Reports stated that there has been no profiteering.

Mr. BILLING: May I ask if he is aware of the cost of these Profiteering Committees to the nation, and whether under the circumstances he will leave it to the Committees to make their fines large enough to pay their own expenses?

Sir J. BUTCHER: When may we expect any Report on the woollen trade and woollen products?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am not quite sure; I should like notice of that.

PUBLIC EXPENDITURE (NATIONAL AND LOCAL).

Mr. HURD: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether, with a view to greater efficiency and economy in administration, he will appoint a committee to investigate the financial relations between the central and municipal authorities and recommend the proper division of local expenditure between the national and local exchequers?

Dr. ADDISON: My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that this question was exhaustively investigated by a committee which reported just before the War, but I am afraid I cannot at the present time add anything to the answer which I gave him on the 1st of March.

Mr. HURD: May I ask the Prime Minister, to whom this question is addressed, as it is a question of public policy, whether he is aware that nine months ago a Minister gave a definite assurance to this House that the question was under serious consideration by the Government?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of a question of that sort.

INCOME TAX.

Sir W. DAVISON: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the recommendations of the
Royal Commission on Income Tax, that assessing authorities should be empowered to require Super-tax returns from husband and wife separately and to make separate assessments, he will provide in his forthcoming Budget for tax to be payable on such separate assessments and not on the joint income of the husband and wife added together, whereby a husband and wife are at present often made liable to the payment of Super-tax who would not be liable if their incomes were assessed separately, a liability which is not incurred by unmarried persona living together?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am unable to make any statement with regard to possible changes of taxation until the Budget is opened.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to give very careful consideration to this matter, as, having regard to the suggestion of the Commissioners that Super-tax on incomes over £2,000 a year should be greatly increased to pay for the reductions of the lower incomes, very serious hardships will arise on married people who have their incomes added together?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better repeat that speech on the Budget.

TREASURY NOTES.

Brigadier-General SURTE ES: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the dirty condition of many of the Treasury 10s. notes; and, seeing that the fact that they are made of thinner paper than the £l notes militates against their preservation, will he see what can be done in the matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Arrangements are already in force under which soiled currency notes returning to the Bank of England are not put again into circulation.

SUGAR DUTY.

Mr. KILEY: 56.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the duty levied on sugar in the year 1914; what is the duty now levied; and has this duty increased by something over 1,000 per cent.?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The standard rate of duty on sugar in 1914 was 1s. 10d. the cwt. The present rate is £1 5s. 8d. the cwt., which is reduced by one-sixth in the case of sugar of Empire origin. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS (GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE).

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the total amount of the financial assistance granted to industrial undertakings of all kinds during the war; what is the number of undertakings so assisted; in how many cases are there outstanding obligations on the part of the Government; and what is the total amount of such obligation?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. and gallant Member's question is a very wide one, and would require a detailed examination of an immense number of transactions from the outbreak of war onwards. I do not think that the result which might be obtained would justify the expenditure of time and labour involved in this examination, but the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull had an unstarred question on the paper for Friday, 5th March, asking for a statement of public money invested in registered companies, the names of the companies, and the amounts and dates of each investment. To answer this question will take time, for I have to obtain information from several Departments, but when I have obtained it I will embody it in a Parliamentary Return, and I hope that this Return will supply the hon. and gallant Member for Central Aberdeen with the material part of the information for which he asks.

Mr. KILEY: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer inform the House how many concerns there are in which the Government own all the shares?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Speaking from memory, I do not know of any company in which that is the case, but the Return which I will ask the hon. Member for Hull to move for, and which I will supply as soon as I am able to get the information, will say exactly what the Government holding in companies are.

Major M. WOOD: When may we expect that Return?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot name a date. I have got to communicate with several other Government Departments and get the information from them, but there will be no unnecessary delay.

TAXATION (EFFECT ON RATES).

Mr. LAMBERT: 58.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he has received protests from county councils against the increase in taxation necessitated by carrying out the provisions of recent Acts of Parliament and the constant fresh requirements emanating from Government Departments; and whether the Treasury will oppose Acts of Parliament being passed which involve fresh burdens being placed on the ratepayer?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. While I am in a position to sympathise with the difficulties with which other financial authorities are faced, I do not think that the duty suggested can properly be regarded as part of the functions of the Treasury.

Mr. LAMBERT: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the extremely heavy rates which are crushing industries throughout the country?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My right hon. Friend some time ago asked me whether I was not the guardian of the rates. That is not my function. It is rather that of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. My relations to the ratepayers are of a different kind. They are amongst my most dangerous enemies.

Mr. LAMBERT: May I ask whether he and his right hon. Friend will look after each other to protect the ratepayers and taxpayers?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think we shall do better if we each attend to our own business.

CIVIL SERVANTS (TRAVELLING ALLOWANCES).

Major WHELER: 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there is any general scheme of revision of the travelling allowances of civil servants under consideration at the present time;
and, if not, when the scheme of revision can be entered upon?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): Departments have been asked to furnish to the Treasury statements of the travelling allowances drawn by various classes of Civil Servants. Until this information has been received, I am unable to say whether any revision will be considered necessary.

Major WHELER: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether we shall get a reply fairly soon?

Mr. BALDWIN: I cannot say when.

RHODESIAN SETTLERS (GRANTS OF LAND).

Sir WILLIAM SEAGER: 60.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, after the rebellion in 1896, the late Mr. Cecil Rhodes promised the Rhodesian settlers who fought in that campaign a tract of land for farming purposes; that land on the Wankie was given them but was found to be uninhabitable, and that after many applications the case was laid before Lord Cave's Commission, but the settlers were again referred to the Wankie district; and whether, seeing that the wish of the late Mr. Cecil Rhodes is still unfulfilled and that consequently the volunteer settlers are suffering a grave injustice, he will make inquiries into the matter?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I understand the position to be that Mr. Rhodes is stated to have made a verbal promise of the grant of farms to certain of the volunteers at the time of the 1896 rebellion. Certain farms were offered by the British South Africa Company in pursuance of this promise, but it appears that some of the volunteers are not satisfied with the conditions attached to the proposed grants or the locality of the farms offered. I am not aware that any injustice has been suffered, and the matter is one in which previous Secretaries of State have not thought it necessary to intervene.

BRITISH EAST AFRICA (CURRENCY).

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 61.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the decision regarding the change
of the currency in British East Africa from rupees to florins is final; when it will take effect; whether the new currency will extend to the Tanganyika territory; and whether all existing silver rupees, rupee notes, and rupee stamps will be withdrawn from circulation in both territories?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: The decision to change the currency system in the East Africa Protectorate, Uganda, and the Tanganyika Territory from the rupee to the florin, fixed at one-tenth of the pound sterling, is final. The new currency will be put into circulation as soon as it is available in sufficient quantities. The existing silver coins and rupee notes will be withdrawn as rapidly as possible when the new currency is available, and steps will also be taken to replace those stamps the values of which are at present expressed in rupees.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Would it not simplify the whole of our Colonial currency system if the hon. and gallant Gentleman called the rupee a florin and the half-rupee a shilling?

Lieut.-colonel AMERY: I think I mentioned, in answer to a question some little time ago, that the half-rupee would be called a shilling.

Brigadier-General COCKERILL: Will debts incurred in rupees be repayable in these florins, and, if so, at what rate?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: Yes, Sir, for the purposes of repayment of debt and on contracts, the new florin will rank as the new rupee.

Brigadier-General COCKERILL: Is not the effect of that decision to increase the debts of everyone of the settlers in East Africa by 50 per cent., since debts incurred at 1s. 4d. will be repaid at 2s.?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: In so far as people are owners of sterling, and have to pay out of sterling funds here, I am afraid it does increase their indebtedness. In so far as they are owners of rupees, and have debts to repay, it diminishes it.

Brigadier-General COCKERILL: Does not that mean—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not asking for information, but giving it.

BIRDCAGE WALK AND MALL.

Viscount CURZON: 62.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been drawn to the rapidly deteriorating surface of Birdcage Walk and the Mall; and whether any steps will be taken to institute the necessary repairs at an early date in order to avoid a greater expenditure in the future?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): Birdcage Walk will be repaired during the coming financial year, if funds are voted by Parliament for the purpose. The surface of the Mall will be repaired, where actually necessary, this year, but the entire relaying of the wood pavement will probably be postponed for a period.

RUSSIAN EMBASSY, CHESHAM PLACE.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 63.
asked the First Commissioner of Works who is now occupying the Russian Embassy in Chesham Place; and whether any charges fall upon His Majesty's Government for the upkeep of that building?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The Russian Embassy is at present inhabited by Monsieur Sabline, the successor of Monsieur Nabokoff, and his staff; and it also provides workrooms for the Russian Relief Fund, the Russian Red Cross and Lady Georgina Buchanan's Relief Committee, numbering approximately sixty ladies. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative, but a proportion of the local rates on the building is defrayed by the Treasury.

BUSINESS PROPERTY SALE, MANCHESTER.

Lieut.-Colonel HURST: 67.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, owing to the sale by the trustees of Hulme's Charities to the Co-operative Wholesale Society, Limited, of a large block of property adjacent to the Manchester wholesale market, the whole of the tenants thereof have recently received notice to quit in June next, without any previous intimation or opportunity to purchase the premises; whether he is aware that these tenants are almost all wholesale fruit and vegetable merchants,
some of whom have occupied their premises from 30 to 35 years, and many of whom have spent large sums in improvements; and whether, in view of the impossibility of their finding alternative accommodation, he will recommend prompt measures to protect these persons from hardship, their employes from unemployment, and the food supply of Manchester from serious danger?

Dr. ADDISON: My attention had not previously been called to this case. I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend of the provisions of Section 6 of the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, under which the consent of the local authority in writing is required for use otherwise than as a dwelling house of any house that was so used on the 3rd of December, 1919.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

MILK.

Mr. MYERS: 68.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is yet able to say when the Bill to authorise local authorities to trade in milk will be introduced?

Dr. ADDISON: I am not at present in a position to add anything to the replies which I have recently given on this subject.

SUGAR.

Mr. A. SHORT: 73.
asked the Food Controller whether the price of sugar for jam-making purposes is fixed at 1s. 2d. per pound; and, if so, how does he reconcile this price with the rationed price of 10½d. per pound?

Mr. J. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Owing to the fact that the Royal Commission on the Sugar Supply still holds certain stocks of sugar purchased at prices lower than those now ruling, it has been found possible to issue sugar for domestic consumption at 10d. per lb., a price actually much below its economic value in the markets of the world. The stocks referred to are not sufficient to permit of the taking of a similar course in the case of sugar issued for domestic preserving, which must be disposed of at its economic value and on the same basis as sugar sold for manufacturing purposes—114s. per cwt. or 1s. 2d. per lb.

Sir R. COOPER: Who gets the advantage of the increased profit of 3½d.—does the Government get the benefit?

Mr. PARKER: There is no question of the Government getting any benefit. The Government could not supply the sugar for preserving purposes at a less price, because it has not been purchased at 10d. per lb. They must sell it at 1s. 2d.

Mr. SWAN: Is there not an increased supply? How, then, does it come that the price has also increased?

Mr. PARKER: The hon. Member will find a reply to that in my answer.

Mr. SWAN: Does it tally; should it not be increased supply and reduced price?

Mr. KILEY: 74.
asked the Food Controller what price the Government paid for the sugar which is now being retailed at 10d. per lb.?

Mr. PARKER: The sugar now being retailed at 10d. per lb. has been purchased in many different consignments at prices which have varied considerably from time to time. It is, therefore, impossible to give any exact figure in reply to this question. It may, however, be stated that in no case does the retail price of 10d. per lb., of which 2¾d. must be allowed for duty, cover the aggregate cost of purchasing, transporting, refining and distributing supplies of sugar acquired during the last six months.

ORANGES AND ONIONS DESTROYED, CARDIFF.

Mr. SITCH: 75.
asked the Food Controller if his attention has been drawn to a Report presented to the Cardiff Health Committee on the 17th instant, stating that 51 tons of oranges and 16 tons of onions had been destroyed as unfit for food, the consignees of the same preferring the goods to get into that condition rather than sell them at the prices offered; that it was officially reported at the same meeting that consignments of goods had been held up at the docks for three years, that they could not be distributed in the district, and were ultimately sent to Germany; whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into these statements; and, if found correct, will he order that proceedings be taken according to the Law against the firm that allowed the oranges and onions
above-mentioned to become unfit for human consumption?

Mr. PARKER: The Report in question has not yet been received by the Food Controller, but as a result of statements which have appeared in the Press inquiries have already been instituted into the matter. The Food Controller is informed that though certain quantities of fruit which have arrived in Cardiff in a damaged condition have from time to time been destroyed for that reason, there is no ground for the suggestion that fruit or onions have been held up in order that enhanced prices might be secured. A further and more detailed report will be received in the course of a few days dealing with the whole matter and will be communicated to the hon. Member, who may rest assured that proceedings will be taken in any case where food appears to have been deliberately wasted.

SMALL HOLDINGS, PEEBLESSHIRE.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: 69.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether any progress has been made in the provision of further small holdings in Peeblesshire?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): Negotiations are in progress for the acquisition of an estate in the county for a joint scheme of land settlement and afforestation. A further scheme under the Landholders Acts is under consideration.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Will my right hon. Friend assure me that every possible step will be taken to expedite the formation of these small holdings, in view of the demand which has existed for so long, and the delay which has taken place?

Mr. MUNRO: I think my right hon. Friend may rely that there will be no avoidable delay. I am quite aware he is interested in the scheme. The difficulty about carrying it through so far has been that it has been impossible to secure agreement, and the compensation is complicated and even prohibitive.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: When is it expected that the first soldier will be settled on this estate?

Mr. MUNRO: I think I have informed the House this has already been done.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Why is there such an undue proportion between the
land acquired for small holdings in the counties of the Highlands and the Lowlands?

Mr. MUNRO: It is extremely difficult to purchase the same amount of land in every county in Scotland. I have to take advantage of the opportunity as it arises.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

TYPEWRITING MACHINES (CHARGES ON RAILWAYS).

Brigadier-General SURTEES: 70.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the fact that the underground railway companies of London compel passengers carrying portable typewriting machines, which in many instances only weigh a few pounds, to take out bicycle tickets at a charge of 2s. 4d., however short the distance; if this charge is general throughout the railway system of the country; and if he will communicate with the heads of the offending companies in order to have this charge abolished?

Mr. NEAL: I have been asked to answer this question. I am in communication with the railway companies upon the question of charges for typewriters.

LONDON ELECTRIC RAILWAY COMPANIES (FARES) BILL.

Mr. W. THORNE: 77.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the underground railway companies, in common with other railway companies, receive a remission of 5 per cent. passenger duty on all third-class fares, and a reduction from 5 to 2 per cent. on first and second-class fares; if he is aware that the remission was granted by the State to meet any loss in running workmen's trains; and if he will state what amount of money has been granted to the underground railway companies during the time that the underground railways have been running?

Mr. NEAL: The Cheap Trains Act of 1883, which applies to all railways in Great Britain, provided for a remission of passenger duty in respect of all fares not exceeding one penny a mile and a reduction from 5 to 2 per cent. on fares exceeding a penny a mile between
stations within a continuous urban area. In consideration of this concession the railway companies were put under obligation to run a reasonable number of trains at fares not exceeding a penny a mile, to provide workmen's trains at reasonable fares between 6 p.m. and 8 a.m. and to carry officers and men of the King's Forces on duty, and public baggage, stores and ammunition at reduced rates. The remission of duty was not solely made on account of the running of workmen's trains. Since 1916 the collection of railway passenger duty has been suspended on the lines of the controlled railway companies. In regard to the last part of the question, I am informed that the figures are not available.

Mr. THORNE: 78.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that if the London Traffic Combine Bill is passed in its present form it will raise the present fares by 100 per cent. and do away with the cheap workmen's trains, which will mean to some families an increase in railway fares of about £2 per week; if he can state whether the secretary of the London Trades Council has appealed to the Prime Minister to receive a deputation on the matter; and if he will state what action the Government intend to take with regard to the Second Reading of the Bill?

Mr. NEAL: The general effect of the London Electric Railway Companies (Fares) Bill in its present form is to give those companies power to charge fares not exceeding the maxima laid down in the Bill, which are roughly 100 per cent. over the existing maxima on most of the lines. The attitude of the Government can best be explained when the Second Reading of the Bill is under consideration.

Mr. THORNE: Does the hon. Gentleman dispute the facts stated in the question, that if the powers that the companies are seeking are carried out to the full extent it will affect workmen's families to the extent of more than £2 a week?

Mr. NEAL: I am not in a position to verify those figures.

Mr. THORNE: I am! Because it affects my own family to the extent of over £2 a week.

Mr. GILBERT: 79.
asked the Minister of Transport what was the amount of the subsidy paid by the Government to the Metropolitan District Railway Company for the last two years; what are the conditions on which the payment is made; and if it is a general grant made to this company to be used to assist other traffic undertakings which are controlled by the same interests as the Metropolitan District Railway Company?

Mr. NEAL: The amounts actually paid by the Government to the Metropolitan District Railway for the last two years were:—

1918
1919



£
£


Compensation
412,227
681,407


Interest on additional capital
5,950
4,958


Arrears of Maintenance
5,211
—

These figures are based on the Company's claims and the amounts have been paid on account, subject to aduit.

Compensation is payable to this Company, as being a controlled company, under the general Agreement with the controlled railway companies, which were guaranteed their net receipts in the year 1913. Under the authority of the London Electric Railways Facilities Act, 1915, the Company entered into agreement with the uncontrolled tube railways and the London General Omnibus Company and set up a Common Fund under which the actual earnings of each company ceased to be ascertainable. The Board of Trade, therefore, agreed that, for the purpose of assessing compensation under the guarantee, the gross receipts of the Company in each year of control should be assumed to be the same as the gross receipts in 1913, subject to certain adjustments.

The compensation to the District Railway, like their other revenue, is subject to the Common Fund Agreement.

Mr. GILBERT: Are we to understand from that the District Railway Company is entitled to hand over part of the Government money given to them to the Omnibus Company which made a loss on their trading last year?

Mr. NEAL: I think that matter will be better dealt with in the discussion to-night.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL PRODUCTION.

RETAIL COAL PRICES ORDER, 1917.

Mr. HANNA: 72.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that, in their returns to the Larne Urban Council for the purpose of ascertaining the maximum price which might be charged for the sale of coal by retail for domestic purposes in that area, as required by Section 9 of the Retail Coal Prices Order, 1917, the coal merchants concerned supplied to the council figures in respect of freight charges in excess of the maximum rates of freight as fixed by the Ministry of Shipping, and that the council fixed the maximum price as from the 9th October, 1919, on the basis of those figures and that, as a result, the consumers have been overcharged about 2s. 6d. per ton on their supplies; and what action, if any, he intends to take in the matter?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The responsibility for fixing maximum retail prices of house coal in Ireland, and of revising such prices as and when required, rests with the Local Authority concerned. In view, however, of representations made to the Coal Controller by the Larne District Trades' and Labour Council in the sense indicated by the hon. Member, the Controller's representative in Ireland has been requested to inquire into the matter, and I will inform the hon. Member of the result.

BELFAST (SHORTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD SUPPLIES)

Mr. T. MOLES: (by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, despite the allocation of 10,000 tons of Welsh steam coal to Ireland for industrial purposes, the acute shortage of coal for domestic purposes has been in no degree mitigated Whether he is aware that the Medical Superintendent Officer of Health for Belfast has reported to the City Council that the recent large increase in the number of deaths of children is attributable mainly to the want of coal for providing warmth in the houses of the people. Whether at a special meeting of the North of Ireland Coal Control Committee a resolution was unanimously adopted strongly urging that sufficient coal for domestic purposes and gas works undertakings is not being released by the Coal and Coke Supplies
Committees for the need of the people in the northern area. That a large proportion of householders in numerous cases with illness in the house, are quite unable to obtain even a small supply of coal without waiting weeks for delivery; that the additional allocation of 10,000 tons Welsh steam coal to Ireland will only assist in partly relieving the shortage on industrial coal, and will not help the existing acute shortage on domestic coal; and whether, in view of this very serious position, he will take immediate steps to ensure such a supply of coal as will relieve the distress and suffering due to the protracted coal shortage in the northern area of Ireland?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No allocation of 10,000 tons of Welsh steam coal for industrial purposes in Ireland has been made, but approximately 40,000 tons monthly have been allocated to Ireland generally. I was not aware deaths of children in Belfast were attributable to lack of coal, but supplies to that port and to Ireland generally were necessarily reduced owing to the recent strike of coal labourers in Belfast. No information as to the resolution said to have been adopted by the North of Ireland Committee has been received. All possible steps are being taken to ensure adequate supplies of coal for Ireland.

Mr. MOLES: If I send the hon. Gentle man a copy of the resolution which I know has been addressed to his Department, will be at once proceed to take action to relieve the acute suffering in Belfast?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon. Member is rather too late. I have already proceeded to take what action I can to relieve that suffering. I was not disputing the accuracy of what was contained in the question.

Mr. MOLES: May I ask what action the hon. Gentleman has taken?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have stated that we had allocated 40,000 tons of coal monthly to Ireland generally.

Mr. MOLES: But that was for industrial purposes and not for domestic use. That is the point of my question.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have already stated that the coal was for Ireland
generally, and not merely for industrial purposes.

ELECTRIC LAMPS IMPORTED.

Mr. RAFFAN: 71.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the evidence given and the statement in the recent Report of the Sub-Committee of the Committee on Trusts that, under import restrictions during the first half of last year, the public had to pay 12s. 6d. for electric lamps brought from Holland where their price was 3s.; that during the second half of that year they still had to pay 10s. 6d for these lamps, and that the estimated amount which the British public were overcharged on these lamps exceeded £250,000; whether there is now any embargo or restriction on the free importation of these lamps; and, if so, whether he will take immediate steps to remove them and to allow the lamps to be imported freely?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My attention has been drawn to the Report in question There are now no restrictions on the import of electric lamps.

Mr. RAFFAN: Does the hon. Gentleman admit the accuracy of the facts as stated in the question?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not think I should like to commit myself to all of them.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. MYERS: 81.
asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether a person in receipt of an old age pension who has relatives in Australia, who would give him care and attention in his old age, could emigrate to that country and have his pension forwarded to him there?

Mr. BALDWIN: The reply is in the negative. Section five of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1911, provides that "a sum shall not be paid on account of an old age pension … to any person while absent from the United Kingdom."

WOMEN (EMPLOYMENT).

Mr. SITCH: 83.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the firm of Messrs. Vandervell and Company, Limited, Acton, last week dismissed at a moment's notice over 70 women of 18
years and over and engaged in their places girls of 14 to 16 years of age; and whether, in view of the unemployment existing among women in this district, he is prepared to take any steps in the matter?

Lieut.-Colonel GILMOUR: The attention of the Ministry of Labour has been drawn to this matter. The Department have been in communication with the firm and have been informed that the work on which the women were engaged has ceased and that young girls have been taken on in another department for a different class of work. Investigations are still proceeding and I am awaiting a further report.

BRITISH CELLULOSE COMPANY.

Mr. ALFRED DAVIES: 85.
(Clitheroe)
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions if the contemplated profits stated in the prospectus of the British Cellulose and Chemical Manufacturing (Parent) Company, Limited, are realised, namely, that the earnings of that company should be sufficient to pay to the preference shareholders an additional nine per cent. over and above the seven and a-half per cent. to which they have cumulative rights; and what will be the percentage returns to the vendors of the shares of the original British Cellulose and Chemical Manufacturing Company on the cash which they put into that company?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. J. Hope): The percentage returns to the vendors of the shares of the original British Cellulose and Chemical Manufacturing Company on the cash which they put into that company can only be calculated after it is known the amount of dividend payable on the ordinary shares of the British Cellulose and Chemical Manufacturing (Parent) Company, Limited, and I have no information as to what this dividend is likely to be.

INDIAN ARMY OFFICERS INVALIDED.

Mr. JAMESON: 92.
asked the Secretary of State for India how many officers of the Indian Army have been invalided out
owing to the War; and how many of these have been given employment by the Government of India or the Foreign Office?

Mr. FISHER: The information cannot be furnished without reference to India, which is being made.

AMALGAMATED PRESS, LIMITED.

Lieut. - Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: 34.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Standing Committee on Trusts may be directed to inquire into the business of the Amalgamated Press, Limited, and the Associated Newspapers, Limited, the former of which companies has paid 40 per cent. on ordinary shares for several years past, and the latter of which has paid 20 per cent. on the deferred shares; and, in view of the fact that the price to the public of the extremely important journals published by the latter company has been doubled within recent years, the Standing Committee may be directed to report as to whether undue profiteering has taken place in connection with the raising in price of what has become a household necessity?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have been asked to reply. I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer on this subject which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Forfar on the 22nd March.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Standing Committee on Trusts to inquire into the profits of this company with a view to finding out whether their enormous profits are in any way due to Government extravagance?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I said in the answer to which I referred that the Committee on Trusts has power to investigate these things if they think fit.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Can the hon. Member draw the attention of the Standing Committee on Trusts to these companies and ask them to inquire into this question?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The questions which have been asked in this House have undoubtedly drawn their attention to this matter. They have a large number of questions to investigate, many of them dealing with the necessaries of life, and
newspapers can hardly be said to come under that category.

Mr. J. JONES: Will the hon. Gentleman give the names of shareholders who are Members of this House?

LOCAL OPTION.

Lieut.-Colonel ALLEN: 38.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware, of the increasing demand for temperance legislation and the reduction of the number of public-houses, as foreshadowed by the proposed Bills of unofficial Members dealing with local, option in England, Wales, and Ireland, and which already obtains in Scotland; and if he will introduce a Bill dealing with this subject embracing the United Kingdom at an early date?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think that my hon. and gallant Friend should await the introduction of the promised Bill to deal with the subject.

Mr. RAFFAN: Has the question of local option been considered in connection with this Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member had better see the Bill first.

Mr. RAFFAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication when the Bill will be introduced?

The PRIME MINISTER: Not till after Easter.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL MINING INDUSTRY.

STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER.

Commander Viscount CURZON: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether in view of the very serious developments of the negotiations with the miners, and the apparent probability of a miners' strike, he will at once take steps to stop the export and unnecessary consumption of coal throughout the country, until he is assured that the danger is over?

The PRIME MINISTER: I need not assure my Noble Friend that the considerations raised in this question are not being neglected by the Government, but I cannot usefully make any statement on the subject at present. I should like to add one word in order to remove a
misapprehension which has appeared in the Press, and which might prove mischievous. I observe that some of the papers this morning stated that I had refused to meet the miners' leaders, but that is not in the least accurate. I should like to call attention to the fact that I wrote yesterday to tell them that if they desired to see me at any time this evening (that meant last night), I would be very pleased to receive them. I think it is important that that should be made clear, because the reports in the Press gave the impression that I was unwilling to meet them.

Mr. CLYNES: Was not the right hon. Gentleman's statement to the miners to the effect that if he did see them it would not be possible to alter the decision which was reached, and will he say whether negotiations are still proceeding?

The PRIME MINISTER: No. As a matter of fact I have their consent to the publication of the letters which would prevent any of these misconceptions appearing, and if the right hon. Gentle-man will read those letters he will see that what appeared in the Press is not in the least the statement which I made.

Mr. J. JONES: Is there any truth in the report in the Press that the Government have made arrangements for the blockading of the mining districts?

The PRIME MINISTER: Absolutely none.

Mr. SWAN: Is there any truth in the statement that soldiers will be mobilised in various parts of the mining areas in the event of negotiations breaking down, and is that act likely to provoke more discontent?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope the House of Commons and the country do not accept these wild statements. They are very mischievous, and I am not at all sure that they are not deliberately intended to be so, in fact, I am convinced that they are. There is not a shadow of truth in them.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

EASTER RECESS.

Mr. CLYNES: May I ask the leader of the House what business it is intended to take next week; also whether he can
give any information as to the recess, and whether, in the event of the House adjourning on Wednesday next, it will meet at 12 o'clock?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The business proposed for next week is, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, consideration of the Government of Ireland Bill on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, and the adjournment also on Wednesday. I understand, as regards the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, there is a general desire that, in order that hon. Members may be able to get away early, the House shall meet at 12 o'clock, instead of at the usual hour, on Wednesday. The Government offer no objections to that arrangement, on the understanding that, as the idea is to meet the convenience of Members, the Division shall take place correspondingly earlier, say, not later than 6 o'clock. [HON. MEMBEES: "Four o'clock!"] I said "not later than 6 o'clock." In this connection may I make an appeal to the House with regard to questions? If we meet at 12, questions do not necessarily end at a given hour, and I hope, therefore, as this arrangement is being made for the general convenience, only a small number of questions will be put down.

Mr. CLYNES: Has the date for reassembling been fixed?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I would rather not give the exact date. There will be very little more than a week.

Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask if, during the vacation, the Cabinet will consider the advisability of the House meeting at 12 o'clock every day, and finishing at 9 o'clock at night?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Personally, I am afraid that if we should meet at 12 o'clock we should not be quite sure of separating at 9 o'clock.

LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND) BILL.

Major O'NEILL: May I ask the Leader of the House when it is intended to introduce the Land Purchase (Ireland) Bill?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot yet name the day.

Major O'NEILL: Will it be before Easter?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No.

CHANNEL TUNNEL.

Sir ARTHUR FELL: Can the Prime Minister make a further statement with regard to the Channel Tunnel?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not an urgent question. I have known of it myself for over five-and-twenty years.

BILL PRESENTED.

DUPLICANDS OF FEU-DUTIES (SCOTLAND) BILL,

"to amend the Law relating to the payment of Duplicands of Feu-duties in Scotland," presented by Mr. JAMESON; supported by Mr. William Graham, Mr. Hogge, Sir Donald Maclean, Mr. Adam-son, Mr. Frederick Thomson, Colonel Greig, and Mr. Macquisten; to be read a second time upon Friday, 16th April, and to be printed. [Bill 58.]

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP A).

Sir CHARLES HANSON reported from the Committee on Group A of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Wednesday the 14th April, at Eleven of the Clock.

Report to lie upon the Table.

RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 1).

Lieut.-Colonel WALTER GUINNESS reported from the Committee on Group 1 of Railway Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Wednesday, 14th April, at Eleven of the Clock.

Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the Wandsworth, Wimbledon, and Epsom District Gas Company; and for other purposes." [Wandsworth, Wimbledon, and Epsom District Gas Bill [Lords.]

Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer powers upon the urban district council of the urban district of Llandrindod Wells, in the county of Radnor, with
reference to the utilisation of certain springs and the provision of pump rooms and baths; to confer further financial and other powers upon the council; and for other purposes." [Llandrindod Wells Urban District Council Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to dissolve the marriage of Georgiana Victoria, Viscountess de Vesci, of 16, Stanford Road, London, in the county of London, with Ivo Richard Vesey, Viscount de Vesci, a major in the Irish Foot Guards, her now husband, and to enable her to marry again; and for other purposes." [de Vesci's Divorce Bill [Lords.]

Wandsworth, Wimbledon, and Epsom District Gas Bill [Lords],

Llandrindod Wells Urban District Council Bill [Lords],

Head the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

de Vesci's Divorce Bill [Lords],

Read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.

Considered in Committee; and reported without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Orders of the Day — FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

Mr. ASQUITH: The successive stages of this Bill have always been regarded as the appropriate and constitutional occasions for Members to ask the House to pass in review whatever may be, for the time being, the outstanding features of administrative work. I wish to ask their attention for a very short time this afternoon to one or two aspects which seem to me to be of special urgency and importance in the domain of foreign policy. I shall purposely leave on one side for the moment, Russia and all questions connected with Russia. From many points of view her position and her prospects may be said to be at once the crux and the key of the international situation. But for to-day I am quite content to confine myself to the expression of a hope that the proposed Commission of Inquiry under the auspices of the League of Nations, which has been or is about to be constituted, will not delay proceeding to discharge its all-important functions. Nor will I say anything about the position of things in Germany, for reasons which I think are obvious, except to ask the Government for any information they can now give us as to the inner meaning and the probable results of the recent revolutionary movement, and whether they can hold out to the House and to the country, and indeed to the world, a prospect there, so far as one can forecast, of the establishment of a stable governmental régime. The points to which I wish to draw special attention are two, the first the re-arrangement and the future government of what used to be Turkish territory, and next, the condition of Austria and the Central European States.
4.0 P.M.
First, in regard to Turkey, we shall all agree—I daresay that it was nobody's
fault—that there has been what has proved in fact to be the most regrettable delay in the peace negotiations and in the attainment of something like a final conclusion in that part of the world. I am well aware that there is no part of the international sphere in which the work of settlement is more difficult. If that be true, it is equally true that there is no part of the world in which the continuance of unsettlement is more pregnant with trouble and even with danger. I believe that there are one or two propositions in regard to the Ottoman Empire which in this country meet practically with universal assent. The first is that the continuance of the Ottoman Government as an effective administrative and governing machine in any part of Europe has become an anachronism and danger. The next is, and I believe that this is common ground, not only here, but among all the Allied and Associated Powers, that the control of the Straits, upon which the commanding position, strategical and otherwise, of Constantinople in the long run depends, is no longer to be in the hands of the Ottoman Government. It is, as I understand, to be internationalised; whether directly or indirectly under the League of Nations, I do not know, and for the moment I do not inquire, but it has become a matter of international interest and concern. Further, I think it is an open secret that His Majesty's Government for a long time, almost up to the end, were in favour of the actual expulsion of the Turk from Constantinople itself. They have yielded in that respect, not perhaps from any conviction based upon the expediency or the policy of the case, but they have yielded to the expression of sentiment, religious sentiment, traditional sentiment, on the part of our Moslem fellow-subjects in India.
I should like, if I may, to say one or two words upon this point. We have had in this country a delegation purporting to represent, we do not know with what degree of real authority, Moslem opinion in India. They have circulated a memorial, which I suppose has been in the hands of all hon. Members, and I myself have had the privilege of an interview with them. The conclusion to which I have come, both from reading their memorandum and from the interchange
of ideas which took place, is that, from the point of view of Moslem sentiment in India, the future of Constantinople, though not without considerable interest to them, not without affecting their religious and traditional susceptibilities, is, after all, a matter of secondary and subordinate importance. Their case is of a much wider, and of a very different kind. It, briefly and crudely, but, I think, accurately, stated, amounts to this, that Moslem sentiment and religious sentiment would not look with indifference upon, but, indeed, would contemplate with repugnance and alarm, the assumption by a Christian Power of direct sovereignty and authority over any part of the territory that used to belong to the Ottoman Empire, which comprises the sites of the holy places and the holy shrines of the Mohammedan religion. After all, the connection of the Caliphate with Constantinople is a comparatively modern matter. The Sultan as Caliph has not been there for more than about three or four hundred years. The Caliphate in days gone by has had a site, first in Damascus, then in Baghdad, and then in Cairo, none of which are regarded in India, in the technical and religious sense, as comprised among the holy places. Constantinople certainly has no better claim than any of those famous historical towns to such title.
The pretensions which are put forward, the larger pretensions to which I alluded a moment ago, I do not hesitate to say, speaking with all deference and respect for the religious sentiment of our Mohammedan subjects, are entirely untenable. What would they amount to? They would amount to this, that the Sultan who joined the Central Powers in this War without justification, and indeed without provocation, and who has sustained with them disaster and the well-merited disaster of a common defeat, that the Sultan, while Germany is dismembered, while Austria is dismembered, and while all the other belligerent Powers who took that side are suffering more or less, and righteously suffering for the part that they took, in virtue of his religious position as Caliph, is to go out practically scot free. You cannot wage wars in these days, even if you are a Caliph, on the terms of limited liability. I am glad to know that Arabia, Syria, Palestine, and Mesopotamia, all of which contain the sites
in one part or another of these Holy places and Holy shrines, are regarded by the Allied Powers, and indeed by the common consent of the civilised world, as not to be restored to the direct or indirect authority of the Ottoman Sovereign. As regards Constantinople itself, I quite realise the difficulty, and now that the announcement has been made throughout the Mohammedan world that the Sultan is not to be expelled from Constantinople, I think it would be very difficult, and indeed from a political point of view impracticable, to recede from that position. If that meant that the Sultan was to be put back into Constantinople in his old position with the opportunities of intrigue, playing off one Christian Power against another, of which for thirty years Abdul Hamid availed himself to the full, with disastrous effects both to his own Empire and to the world at large, I should say that it was an intolerable solution. I cannot imagine that to be within the contemplation of His Majesty's Government or of any great Power. I confess, for my part, that I am inclined, and the more inclined the more I consider the matter, to regard the best experiment—anything you do must be in the nature of an experiment—and most hopeful experiment, I put it no higher than that, to be what has been called the "Vaticanising" of the Sultan. The word is not my own invention; it is, I think, the invention of M. Clemenceau.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George) indicated dissent.

Mr. ASQUITH: Well, we will not quarrel about the authorship; the moaning is perfectly clear. Let him be there with all his spiritual and religious attributes, let him go to his Mosque and perform whatever functions properly belong to the Caliphate in the Mohammedan faith, but, at the same time, let it be clearly understood and clearly provided that he is there in that capacity and that alone, and, so far as responsibility for Government and for policy is concerned, it is no longer in his hands, but in the hands of the great Powers, and, indeed, as I should prefer to say, of the League of Nations. If, as I said a few moments ago, you neutralise and internationalise the Straits, to which you have agreed, the strategical importance of Constantinople is almost immeasurably diminished, and I cannot myself see any
reason why the Sultan remaining there in this "Vaticanised" neutralised position should be a serious menace to the peace and good government of European Turkey, or of Europe at large. Indeed, there is a good deal to be said for keeping him at Constantinople under those conditions, for if you let him loose in Asia, which is the only alternative, he is out of range of surveillance and effective control, and he is much nearer the scene in which the worst misdeeds of his Government have been and are being practised, and I am disposed to think, and it is a growing opinion, that Christian Europe, however embodied in an authentic organ like the League of Nations, will have less effective control to counteract the ineradicable tendencies of a Sultan Government than if he remains under the limited conditions that I have described on this side of the Bosphorus.
That is all that I have to say on that part of the Turkish question, but there are two other aspects of it upon which I think it would be desirable that we should receive further information from His Majesty's Government. The first—in some ways it is a question perhaps of the most poignant interest, though not so far as we are concerned of permanent importance—is the future status of Armenia and the Armenian people. I am not going into one of the most vexed of all geo graphical and ethnological questions, namely, what are the precise boundaries and areas of Armenia? It would be, for instance, a very interesting, but a very difficult, problem to say how far, in Cilicia, where those recent massacres have occurred, there is, in point of number and religion, a preponderating Armenian or Christian population. What is wanted—and this is a point on which I would ask my right hon. Friend to give us any information he can—what is wanted, in my judgment, is a liberal extension westwards, and perhaps south-westwards, of the present limits of the new Republic of Erivan; and at the same time, though I am afraid it is not in a position to stand entirely upon its own legs and to live entirely upon its own resources, the provision for that Republic of more effective means of self defence. It has been suggested, and I think with reason, at any rate with plausibility, that that might be effected, or at
any rate very largely helped, by the despatch of European officers to train and organise the native forces on the spot. That is a matter of the greatest urgency it admits of no delay; and why? Because, so long as Mustapha Kemal and his forces are at large, and the Armenians are left with an inadequate provision for self-protection, the recurrence of massacre and outrage is only a question of time In the prevention of such terrible events as those of 1915, supplemented, as they were, by the events of January and February of the present year, I conceive the honour and conscience of the Christian Powers of Europe are involved. I hope we may receive some assurance that this is a matter which has not only been lost sight of, but is receiving urgent and practical consideration.
The other part of the Turkish Dominion in Asia, on which I think the House is entitled to some more explicit statement of policy than we have yet received, is Mesopotamia. In a sense we are there, as a nation, even more directly concerned. We are maintaining there, the Secretary of State for War told us a few nights ago, an army of over 60,000 men, of whom, I think, something like 18,000 are white troops. The Secretary of State told us, in the Debate on the Army Estimates, that he hopes, before the close of the next financial year, that that force may be reduced by one-half, or something like one-half, I earnestly share that hope, but, at the same time, I am confident that the only way of realising it is to curtail and contract the area of our responsibilities. Let me remind the House of the history of this matter. I myself was very much concerned with it in its early stages. Our original occupation, which, I think, goes as far back as October, or at any rate the late autumn of, 1914, extended only to the area of the Vilayet of Basra, a thoroughly defensible strategic position, which has the double advantage that it controls the lower waters—all-important for this purpose—of the Tigris and Euphrates, and that it commands the head of the Persian Gulf. For reasons both military and political, we were driven, I think inevitably and legitimately, during the War, to advance to Bagdad, and subsequently to Mosul; and I think we have been even further. We have had to encounter from time to time, and, I suppose, are encountering still, the sporadic attacks of Arabs and
Kurds. Mesopotamia is proverbially a vague and indefinite term. Mesopotamia, as a geographical area, has really no natural frontier, and, although I am quite prepared to believe, and, indeed, to maintain, that those advances, first to Baghdad and then beyond, were dictated by adequate military and political considerations, I am equally sure that, if we remain in that area, and upon the scale of our present force in our comparatively recent operations, we should be driven, sooner or later, by inevitable necessity, to advance to that which is really the only natural boundary of this vaguely defined geographical unit—to the shores of the Black Sea or the Caspian. Those are responsibilities which we have no obligation to undertake, and for which, I do not hesitate to say, in the present state of our national resources, we have no adequate means to provide. I earnestly trust that the Government will be able to tell us to-day that they have a settled policy in this matter, and that it is a policy of withdrawal and concentration. I should like, myself, to hear it announced that it has been or will be—it must be a matter of slow degrees, I admit—possible to confine our direct obligation to the zone of Basra, where, as appears from the report of Sir John Prescott Hewett—a very admirable and interesting document—by far the larger part of the very heavy expenditure which we have made in that part of the world in the course of the last three or four years, from which any remunerative return can be expected, has been incurred. That, I am satisfied, ought to be the aim and objective—I do not say it can be at once attained—of our Mesopotamian policy.
I pass now from those matters to a sphere of policy which, although remote, is still somewhat nearer home—I mean that of what used to be called Austria, and of the Central and Eastern European States, once members of the Austrian Empire, which are now struggling, and rightly struggling, into independent life. I doubt whether, in any part of Europe, the economic dislocation and the acute misery and suffering which are the legacy of the War are so appalling and so widespread. There was a despatch, which has been published, I think, as a Parliamentary Paper, from Sir William Goode to Lord Curzon at the beginning of January in the present year,
which gives a perfectly explicit and un-coloured—and for that reason, perhaps, a still more impressive—account than anything I have seen, of the condition of things in that part of Europe. It is summed up, and, I think, quite accurately, in two or three sentences which I will read from the Journal of the League of Nations Union of the present month These are the words:
The despatch conjures up a vision of incredible economic and financial chaos—wagons where there are no locomotives, locomotives where wagons are non-existent, coal with no vehicles in which to transport it, oil with no oil tank wagons—accompanied by so much human suffering that the mind can hardly believe and can hardly conceive it.
I may add to that, as regards Vienna itself, and the great towns, or what were the great towns, of the Austrian Empire, you have, and have had now for months, hospitals without drugs, homes without fuel, children without food; and all this is aggravated by the policy, I cannot help thinking the misguided and shortsighted policy, which those States are pursuing among themselves. In the first place, you have in Austria, so I am told, I believe on, the best authority—in what remains of Austria; I am speaking of Austria proper—something like 200,000 officials, whose main occupation' appears to be to obstruct and counteract one another. You have, as this summary of Sir William Goode's dispatch quite accurately points out, Czecho-Slovakia, with a sugar surplus, unwilling to sell to famine-stricken Austria; you have Jugo-Slavia, one of the few central European countries with a surplus of food products, desirous to sell its crops to countries where it can obtain the credit which it requires to purchase wool and cotton; and, as a result, Austria itself, with these two adjacent States, both of which once formed constituent parts of the Austro-Hungarian Empire—Austria itself starving, while her neighbours are selling their surplus produce in distant parts. That is a state of things which is really a reproach to the statesmanship—I will not say the diplomacy—of Europe, and, I think, to the conscience of the civilised world.
What is to be done? There are two obstacles to what I may call the initial stages of economic reconstruction in that part of the world. The first is one to which I have already referred—the barriers
which they are setting up one against the other. In regard to that, as I ventured to say a fortnight ago, speaking on another matter, I earnestly trust and hope that the pressure of the Allied and Associated Powers will be brought to bear to bring it to an end. The second obstacle, and perhaps the more important one for practical purposes—and it is upon this that I wish to elicit, if I can, the opinion of His Majesty's Government—to even the rudiments of reconstruction, is the need of credits to restart and enlarge the scale of production and to provide adequate and workable machinery for transport and distribution. "What is the great difficulty in the way of removing and improving that state of things? Surely it is the existence, under the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles and through the operation of the Reparation Commission, of an indefinite mortgage on the resources of the Austrian people. It is a floating charge, undefined in amount and possibly of immeasurable duration upon the whole of the industry and enterprise of the country, and so long as that charge exists in this nebulous, but at the same time crushing and paralysing form, it is impossible to obtain credits, and through the credits the raw material and the other resources which they need for the re starting of their national industry. I said something before upon this matter in regard to Germany. The case of Ger many also requires reconsideration, but in the case of Austria the difficulty is even greater, and the need for change is even more urgent. It is quite true that the Separation Commission have, under the Treaty, the power, certainly in the case of Germany—I am not quite sure whether that power exists also in the case of Austria—

The PRIME MINISTER: I think it does, but I will make sure.

Mr. ASQUITH: That can easily be ascertained—I will assume it does—it certainly exists in the case of Germany—to vary the rate of interest and to postpone or even cancel payment. In the case of Germany it is a power which can only be exercised by the unanimous vote of the Reparation Commission and if it exists in the case of Austria also, I presume it is subject to the same condition. That is a very unnecessary and I think most
unworkable provision, and I would earnestly appeal to the Government to use their influence with the other Powers—they cannot act independently—in the first place to define once and for all the position and determine what is the total extent of the possible burden upon Austrian industry and enterprise, and in the next place to give to the Reparation Commission as I should hope—and I express this hope not only in regard to Austria but in regard to Germany also—in time at any rate—reinforced by representation from the countries which were lately our enemies, so that they may have not a preponderating voice but at any rate a voice in the deliberation and determination of matters which after all are of vital importance—that the Reparation Commission, possibly so reinforced, but whether so or not, should not be paralysed in matters of this kind unless it can give a unanimous vote. I cannot see anything which is not demanded by justice or which is inconsistent with fairness in a proposal of that sort. I know very well the sensitiveness, I might almost say the soreness of feeling, which exists among some of our allies as to anything which wears the appearance of tenderness or relaxation in regard to what these Powers have agreed to pay for reparation and indemnity. One ought to use very guarded language in these matters. I can understand very well what are the feelings, say, of a Frenchman or a Belgian who sees his own territory deliberately despoiled, and despoiled during the last year of the War when a German and Austrian victory was impossible. What was done, I will not say only from vindictive motives, but in order to render impossible the restarting of profitable industry in these countries. I have been there and I have seen it and upon no one has it made a greater impression than it has upon me. We can always understand the state of feeling that exists, but this is a question which is not of tenderness or sentiment but of sound policy and expediency. Till you get these countries restarted on something like normal lines for the development of their productive industries, you have no chance of receiving from them anything in the nature of adequate reparation for the injury they have done. The plainest commonsense seems to me to dictate to the Powers of Europe and of the world that every step possible should be taken in the general interest—
not in the interests of humanity alone, but also in interests of those who have suffered the most by the War—to remove obstacles and to provide facilities for the reorganisation of productive and profitable industry.
I hope the Prime Minister will be able to give us some satisfactory assurance on these points. I myself should like very much to see—I agree it may not be possible to do it at once—not only a remodeling of the Reparation Commission, but I should like to see it become a part, perhaps informally and indirectly at first, of the larger machine of the League of Nations itself. These seem to me exactly the sort of matters in which the common interests of all the nations of which the League of Nations has now become the authorised experiment and organ should be dominant. I do not say it would tend to remove ill-feeling. I am not putting it on that ground at all. But it would be in the general interests of the whole civilised world. I hope a large and a liberal view will be taken by the great Powers, and that this terrible spectacle, so dishonouring to our statesmanship, so offensive to the ordinary sentiments of humanity, which is presented at this moment, sixteen months after the cessation of hostilities, over a large part of Central Europe will cease to obtrude itself upon the attention and conscience of mankind. An hon. Member interjected the remark, "it is their own fault." I am not going back on the past and I have not said a word in extenuation of the crimes against humanity which those countries committed. They have to pay the penalty and it is just that they should. No one says they should not. But I am speaking from a wider and a larger standpoint. I am not speaking in their interest, but in the interest of the world at large, when I say that from that wider point of view nothing is more urgent than that we should provide the means and the machinery at the earliest possible moment for reorganising and bringing into profitable operation all the productive forces of those countries.

Mr. CLYNES: On many points in the earlier part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech we find ourselves in wholehearted agreement, and we await with
interest a statement from the Primo Minister on the points which have been raised and in the hope that this statement will be given in the form and in terms of the definite and settled policy for which we have so often appealed. It is useless to try to answer those who present this case with the statement that our late enemies have brought their troubles upon themselves, for the continued disturbance of the whole of Europe, including to a great extent our own country, remains unimproved, and it is in no way diminished by the statement, true in itself, that the Germans and their associates have brought their troubles upon themselves, and we can now only continue to make them suffer severely at the cost of making ourselves suffer also. This disturbed state of Europe must therefore be dispassionately considered, and if possible, remedies discovered and applied in order that we ourselves should be saved even in the effort that we may be driven to make to save our late enemies. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman wholeheartedly in denouncing, if we need do it at this time of day, the wanton, wicked destruction in which Germany indulged at the time when she was being driven out of allied territory, and when she was no longer able to offer anything like either attack or defence. But that destruction ought not to blind us to the indirect and ruinous destruction which countries like France and Belgium still continue to suffer because of the disturbed state of the enemy countries.
That disturbed state, particularly in Germany, manifested itself in a new and dangerous form only a few days ago. Symptoms of revolution have manifested themselves in different forms in different stages of history. Revolution is impossible in any country where there is general contentment, and provision for general contentment. Germany is suffering because its trade is ruined, because it is not yet restored to conditions of economic and diplomatic relationship with other parts of the world, because of food shortage and of the shortage of material for the conduct of its trade and business. The people are so severely suffering that mischief-makers have their special opportunity, and the militarists of Germany within the past few days took the very daring but not surprising step of trying to restore their authority and to resume
their dominion over the people, for the very reason that the people are in such a divided, suffering and discontented condition. They saw their special opportunity in the grievances from which the people cannot escape, for the reasons which I have tried to describe. The people are the prey of these rival and contending factions and forces, particularly in Germany. It was fortunate for the German people that that effort at militarist dominion was defeated, and I refer to it as one of the symptoms of the exhausted and distracted condition of that country.
After this long interval since the signing of the Peace Treaty, and particularly since the Armistice was entered into, we are entitled to ask for some better result from the handling of the situation by our statesmen than has been provided so far. Our soldiers did their work, and offered their lives in service, but the statesmen have not followed up the service of the soldiers in the manner which I think the soldiers naturally expected. The Treaty contains within its full terms provisions for its own modification; but there has been no haste in arranging to modify those parts of the Treaty which it was well understood would have to be modified before Europe could settle to anything like a contented and prosperous and economic state. If those of us who entertain views of this kind on this side of the House are not to be seriously regarded, may I refer to the parting message left to us by General Smuts? His patriotism and wisdom in these matters will scarcely be questioned. He approved the Treaty, or rather signed the Treaty, not because he agreed altogether with its terms, but because it was essential to bring the War to an end, and to hasten as speedily as possible more composed and settled conditions in Europe with regard to its economical life. I find an utterance very closely akin to this statement of General Smuts delivered in Rome by the Italian Prime Minister, and I would like to read part of it. The whole speech of the Italian Prime Minister was couched in the spirit of this paragraph, and I commend it to the Prime Minister as the kind of utterance of which he might take note as the head of our State, and try to instil some of it in the minds of the great personages and people
of influence who have far greater authority in these matters than any of us on this side of the House can claim:
Russia, the reservoir of raw material, and Germany, the reservoir of labour, have both almost ceased to work, and Europe can only regain equilibrium by putting them both on their feet again. There ought to issue from Parliaments and peoples a powerful and human voice urging sympathy and clemency for the vanquished.
That statement would be regarded by some people as no better than sentiment. It is sense. It is the deepest wisdom, for we cannot re-establish ourselves or guard ourselves against the prospect of rising trouble within our own shores until we have assisted the defeated enemy, the defeated countries, to restore themselves and, as the Italian Prime Minister said, to "put them upon their feet again." Owing to the very severity of their defeat, and owing to the fact that trade is world-wide, and that we are all intermingled in the discharge of business and commerce, it is impossible for them to accomplish these great feats themselves, and there is all the greater urgency and need of assistance from these shores in view of what we want from them. No one more than the Prime Minister has offered to the country prospects of indemnities or of reparation, presented in the form of money in substantial amount, from the enemy countries. Can the Prime Minister this afternoon hold out the slightest hope that any of us will live long enough to get from these enemy countries any sum which we have demanded in discharge of the wrongs which they have committed, unless these countries are assisted to get back to something like the pre-war condition of trade and business and international economic relations?
What step has yet been taken by the Government to modify the economic parts of the Peace Treaty in the direction of assisting these countries to get upon their feet in respect of trade and economic conditions? We have had questions in the House this week asking the Government to give us some hope through the machinery of the League of Nations. The Prime Minister was questioned as to when the assembly of the League would be convened in order that these larger and economic and world problems might be considered, but we were left absolutely without hope of any time or any idea when an international organisation of
that kind would begin to act. We are not of opinion that all the work in which we wish the Government to take part can be undertaken or completed by this Government itself. We did much when acting with our Allies, and most of this work must be accomplished, if possible, by endeavouring to act with our Allies. In what way has the Prime Minister so far sought to reciprocate the sentiments of the Italian Prime Minister? What has he said or done to spread throughout the world, and particularly Europe, that sentiment on which alone we can build this re-constructed Europe? The Prime Minister, if I may say so, appears to be specially active in trying to arrange a league of political parties for internal political purposes in this country, and I have been at times not a little distresesd at the absence of more vigorous support from this influential quarter in respect of the work and purposes of this greater League, the League of the Nations of the World. Whether the Prime Minister understands it or not, if this Government has any regard for the deep-rooted sentiment of labour in this country, that sentiment is whole-heartedly in favour of making the League of Nations work, not as a league of some nations, not as a league of conquering nations, but as a league both of victors and of vanquished, for the purpose of hurrying forward that great work of reconstruction which it was said the various nations of the world would immediately have to undertake at the close of the War.
I welcome heartily what was said by the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), with regard to every step being essential to restore the relations as between country and country, and to get that conference which it was said would be called to consider the purposes of an international loan or any other effective steps that would bring back something like confidence and trading conditions to these distracted countries of Europe. It is in this spirit alone that we shall find economic and industrial prosperity. No one now would think of trying to get a vote by talking about hanging the Kaiser, or exacting from these beaten countries those enormous indemnities of which we spoke so loudly 18 months ago. We know now that they are impossible. We know that by any continued crushing or repression of these other countries it is impossible to get back into this country
what we are entitled to. What should we think of that kind of agriculturist who tried to improve his milk and meat supply by starving his cattle? That is literally what has been attempted by the policy so long pursued in relation to those beaten countries. Again I repeat that I am not speaking in terms of compassion for them, but rather in forms of hastening our own internal betterment here. At the worst, something can be said for that section of the enemy countries in no way to blame for the steps taken by those countries during the War. Millions of children, millions of the youth of these countries have bitterly suffered, and are innocently suffering now, because the condition of international relationship has not been restored. The figures are common property and well known. The state of the hospitals, the state of the public institutions, the state of the homes, the graves that have been filled in their thousands by children starved to death in these countries, surely present some evidence to invite the clemency of which the Italian Prime Minister has spoken. Therefore, whilst we may indulge in justifiable condemnation of the male grownup population of the enemy countries, we must not forget that there is this large number of women and children suffering the most severe pangs of privation through the policy which is being foolishly pursued.
5.0 P.M.
It will be a wise thing on the part of the victors to hasten this more composed condition. We ought not to regard ourselves as absolutely immune from the effects of events in Germany, Austria-Hungary, and even Turkey. These events can travel far and travel swiftly. Therefore not in their interest, but in ours, in order that our own trade and business shall be improved, that our own economic condition and our state of finance shall be made to balance, that our own high prices shall be reduced, it is essential that these steps shall be taken without any further delay. I trust, therefore, that this afternoon we shall not be put off with any talk of this being only mere humanitarian sentiment, or the with vague and general assurance that some time or other some step will be taken by the Government, but that a definite and absolutely clear statement of policy will be made. It is the least which is due to this House, as it is about to rise for only a short time, and in view of the urgency
of the conditions which have been created and the need for an immediate cure, I trust that the Prime Minister to-day will be able to give us a more reassuring message.

The PRIME MINISTER: I will do my best to answer the searching and very important questions which have been addressed to the Government by my right hon. Friend. I think that the best thing I can do is to take each of these questions in turn and give to it such answer as his Majesty's Government can possibly afford to give, having regard to the fact that the Peace Conference is sitting and that any declaration which is made is a declaration not merely of British policy, but of allied policy as well. That, of course, is one of the limitations under which a Minister is speaking when dealing with circumstances that are not purely British, but are inter-allied in all their ramifications. I trust that the House will always bear that in mind. The first question put to mc by my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) referred to Germany. He very properly, if I may say so, did not ask the Government to enter into a detailed examination of the position there, because the situation is not clearly defined. The only thing that is perfectly apparent is that the militarist party in Germany attempted a coup d'état, that it failed, and that it had the usual effect of driving people into another—I will not say extreme—direction which was far more removed from the militarist position than ever they went before. The government which has been set up is a government which, so far as I can see, leans much more to the left than the late government. The news, so far as the Spartacist risings are concerned, is, I think, on the whole, reassuring, but we have no definite information. The information which we get comes from governmental sources, and they very naturally take a more optimistic view of the situation than anyone else. But in so far as we are able to judge events there it seems to me that order is being restored gradually, that the counter revolution has been a complete failure, and that, so far as the Spartacist movement is concerned, the government have been able to make terms. That is the most recent information which we have on the subject. There is nothing very clear, but it is a matter
of congratulation, not merely for Germany, but for the whole of Europe, that the militarist plot has failed. That is very satisfactory, but it is very difficult to conjecture what will happen next. I should not like to do so.
I now come to the series of questions which have been put to mc about the Turkish Empire and Austria. With regard to the Turkish Empire, I will just say one word about what was said by my right hon. Friend as to the regrettable delay in establishing peace with Turkey. I quite agree that the delay is very regrettable, but I am sorry to say that it was quite inevitable in the circumstances. I have repeatedly explained to the House of Commons what those circumstances were. We had hopes that the United States of America would share the burden of the oversight of Turkey. It would have made a great difference if they had done so. The supervision of the Turkish Empire will strain the resources of the Allies to the utmost, especially having regard to their other obligations, anxieties and duties nearer home, but if the United States had been ready to come in they might have undertaken the protection of the Armenian population, not merely in Armenia but in the province of Cilicia and some of the adjoining provinces. We also hoped that the United States of America might have undertaken the mandate for the Straits and possibly for Constantinople, and with their seat at Con stantinople might have controlled the activities of Turkish officials throughout the whole of Asia Minor.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say on what he based that hope?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, I have not the right to do so, but the House may take it from mc that I had good reason for coming to that conclusion, otherwise I should not have stated it. It would not be fair to go beyond that. At any rate, we were asked not to proceed with the Turkish scheme until President Wilson had had an opportunity of consulting the United States of America, and we were led to expect that he would be in a position to give us a decision in that respect by the end of August or, at the latest, by September. Difficulties arose in the United States at that time in reference
to the negotiations for the German Treaty. A good deal of political bitterness and antipathy was excited. That is a very good lesson for us—not to rush these partisan conflicts. That is certainly not the way to restore peace in Europe or anywhere else. The result has been that we have not had any definite indication as to the attitude of the United States of America in reference to the Turkish Treaty. We thought that if we had not given time to America to make up its mind our action would have given rise to a feeling; in America that we were anxious to settle the Turkish question without their intervention.
Supposing that we settled the affairs of Turkey with mandates given to France and other countries in respect of different parts of the Turkish Empire, without even affording the United States of America the opportunity of considering whether they would participate in this responsibility, I have no doubt that it would have been said that we were anxious to partition Turkey among ourselves and elbow out the United States of America. Nothing could have been worse than that. The delay has undoubtedly aggravated unrest in Turkey and has intensified the whole of our difficulties there, but I think that it is better that we should face that and work our way through, than that we should create suspicion in the United States of America that we were quite willing to take United States help, but that whenever there was any question of dividing the mandates over these undeveloped territories we instantly took advantage of some little political difficulty in America in order to divide the whole thing among ourselves. That would have been a great political blunder which might have resulted in very unpleasant consequences. We have waited in order to afford America every opportunity to come in, and it was only when America stated definitely that she did not intend to take part in the conference that we proceeded to come to definite decisions with regard to the Turkish Peace. I think that it is due to the Allies to make that explanation.
With regard to the other questions put by my right hon. Friend, as far as I can see he is in general agreement with the Government in regard to the control of the Straits, and certainly not very far removed in the view which he has taken as to Constantinople. It is urged that
there is a great deal to be said about putting the Turk's head in Chancery. If he misbehaves we shall be able to deal with him. It has been said that "Vaticanising" the Sultan at Constantinople means that we would have shut him up in Stamboul and given him a palace and a certain yard in which he could exercise, that he would not be allowed to go outside, but was to exercise all his spiritual functions from there. I am told that that does not really show a very clear apprehension on the part of Christians of what the spiritual authority of the Caliphate really means, that it is not comparable to the spiritual authority of the Pope, but that it is a different thing in essence, and that therefore to "Vaticanise" the Caliphate is something that would not in the least meet the necessities of the case. Besides, what would happen in Constantinople? Who would govern it? Who would administer it? Would the administration be in the hands of the Allies? If so, there is no doubt at all that it would add enormously to the Army expenditure of the various countries which undertook that responsibility. We were anxious to avoid that if we could possibly do so. However, my right hon. Friend did not differ essentially from the attitude we took up. He realises that in questions of this kind, in the first place we are only one out of three or four Powers, and he also realises that it much easier to deal with a Sultan and his Ministers at Constantinople, where they are within reach of the Allied Fleet, than would be if they were allowed to roam at large.
I have, therefore, very little to add in that respect. I will only call attention once more to the statement made in this House, that if it becomes quite clear that the Sultan at Constantinople exercises no authority over his officials in Asia Minor, and that as a matter of fact they do just as they please, and that the mere fact that he is there under Allied supervision weakens his authority, and does not give him the necessary control, then the Allies are perfectly willing to reconsider the whole position. I have hopes that that will not be necessary. The Allied occupation of Constantinople and the action we took there is, I think, having a very good effect. It is too early yet to say what the result will be.
I now come to the question of Armenia I do not know that I have anything to add to what has already been said in
this House, and I certainly do not differ in the least from any of the observations made by my right hon. Friend on this subject in so far as I can carry those in my memory. The difficulty about Armenia is that the Armenian population is scattered over several provinces. There is only one part of Turkey where you can say that the Armenians are in the majority. By no principle of self-determination can you add to the Republic of Armenia territories like Cilicia. In Cilicia they are in a minority, and a very considerable minority. I rather think that the Mohammedans there are in the proportion of three or four to one.

Mr. ASQUITH: No.

The PRIME MINISTER: It is very difficult, when you come to deal with Turkish statistics, to know whose statistics to accept. I do not believe anyone really knows. The Armenian statistics and the Turkish statistics are quite irreconcilable. Here are the figures: Moslems, 548,000; Armenians, 130,000; Greeks, 36,000; other elements, 18,000. So I was not far wrong.

Mr. ASQUITH: All I can say is that I agree with my right hon. Friend that when we put Moslem and Christian statistics against each other it is difficult to get at the truth. All I mean is that it is not conceivable that the population is in anything like that proportion.

The PRIME MINISTER: I can only say that these are statistics which have been furnished to me and which to a certain extent have been checked by British officers who are there. They have not taken a census, but they have been in occupation of the place for a considerable time, and if these figures were hopelessly wrong I think they would have pointed that out. I do not think my right hon. Friend denies that the Armenians are in a minority there and the Christians in a minority. If they were not in a minority there would be no difficulty at all in dealing with the situation. In fact, we have considered it very seriously, and our trouble is that if you grant self-government to Cilicia without some strict control the situation of Christians there will be perfectly hopeless.

Mr. ASQUITH: I was very careful not to advocate the introduction of Cilicia.

The PRIME MINISTER: You are quite right. That is why I said I did not disagree with my right hon. Friend. There are some who seem to imagine that you can somehow or other include the whole of the Armenians in a self-governing State. That is exactly what you cannot do. That province presents a very great difficulty. Cilicia has a Mussulman population in the main.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Is the right Gentleman speaking of the population of Cilicia as it is now or as it was before the massacres? Is he recognising the majority created by the massacres? The figures are not at all admitted, especially in relation to the time before the massacres.

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know what massacres my hon. Friend refers to.

Mr. WILLIAMS: During the War.

The PRIME MINISTER: We must take the facts as they are. I have no doubt that the horrible massacres upset the balance of the population. If you grant self-government it is the people who are the survivors who will exercise it.

Mr. WILLIAMS: We are not asking for that.

The PRIME MINISTER: Quite right, but what is the alternative? Who is to control? That is the difficulty which has arisen owing to the fact that America has failed to undertake what I regarded as her share of the responsibility. If America had accepted the responsibility for controlling Armenia the French, who, under what is called the Sykes-Picot Agreement, had Cilicia assigned to their control, were quite willing to hand it over to American control. The British, French, and Italians are quite agreed on the subject, but we have not yet seen a sign. We have only received telegrams from America asking us to protect the Armenians; we have had no offers up to the present to undertake the responsibility. Who is to do it? It is a very large tract of territory, it is an undeveloped territory—not very developed in roads, hardly developed at all in railways. It is a mountainous wild country. To protect these 200,000 Christians over the whole of that territory involves very considerable responsibility. We are hoping that France will undertake that responsibility, but it is a good
deal to ask of her. We have also got our responsibility, and we cannot take too much upon our own shoulders.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: To prevent massacres is the greatest of our responsibilities.

The PRIME MINISTER: I agree that we have a certain responsibility in the matter, but, with every desire to assist, we really cannot police the whole world. We have used the British Fleet very freely. We practically policed that country for a year or two and policed it successfully, but it cost a very considerable sum of money and we cannot undertake that liability indefinitely. It would not be fair to the British Empire to fasten that burden on its shoulders. That is the trouble with regard to Cilicia. If, by exercising pressure on the Central Government at Constantinople and by a free use of the accessible power of the Allies, we can control the irregularities, we shall be quite prepared to do so, but beyond that I do not believe that Great Britain can undertake any wider responsibility in that sphere. There are Christians scattered over the whole of Asia Minor—an enormous tract. For us to give any pledges which would look like undertaking that we would send armies into Anatolia is something that no Minister has a right to do. I am glad to think I have the assent of my right hon. Friend there.
With regard to the Republic of Erivan, which is Armenian, it depends entirely on the Armenians themselves—whether they protect their independence. They must do so; they must begin to depend upon themselves. They are an intelligent people; they are an exceptionally intelligent people. In fact, it is their intelligence which gets them into trouble sometimes, from all I hear. That is what is so obnoxious to the Turks. I am told that they could easily organise an army of about 40,000 men. If they ask for equipment we shall be very happy to assist in equipping their army. If they want the assistance of officers to train that army, I am perfectly certain there is no Allied country in Europe that would not be willing to assist in that respect. That is far and away the best thing for themselves. It would increase their self-respect. It would make them a manlier and more virile people. Instead of always casting themselves upon other
countries and sending supplications and appeals, let them defend themselves. When they do so the Turk will have too much respect—not for them, but for himself—to attempt any more massacres in that quarter.
The next subject of interrogation is Mesopotamia. Here I must say I was not in agreement with my right hon. Friend. As I understand his view of Mesopotamia; it is that we should confine our effective supervision to the province of Basrah, and that we should practically abandon any attempt to supervise the provinces of Bagdad and Mosul. I think it would be a mistake to abandon those territories. Basrah undoubtedly is a fairly well cultivated province, but it has not the resources of the country higher up the river. You might abandon the country altogether—that I could understand. But I cannot understand withdrawing partly and withdrawing from the more important and the more promising part of Mesopotamia. Mosul is a country with great possibilities. It has rich oil deposits.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Hear, hear!

The PRIME MINISTER: And if you are going to undertake the expense of administering Mesopotamia it is right, at any rate, that the country should bear that expense.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: For the good of the people.

The PRIME MINISTER: It is for the good of the people. They were misgoverned. This was one of the richest countries in the world. What is it now? It is a wilderness. It contains some of the richest natural resources of any country in the world. It maintains a population now of a little over 2,000,000. It was at one time one of the great Empires of the world. Is it not for the benefit of the people of that country that it should be governed so as to enable them to develop this land which has been withered and shrivelled up by oppression? What would happen if we withdrew? Does anyone imagine that, if we withdrew, there would be any improvement at all? If we did not undertake the task probably some other country would, and unless some country were to undertake the task. Mesopotamia would be exactly where she is
to-day, or probably much worse. I say that, after incurring the enormous expenditure which we have incurred in freeing this country from the withering despotism of the Turk, to hand it back to anarchy and confusion, and to take no responsibility for its development would be an act of folly and quite indefensible. I cannot therefore agree with my right hon. Friend with regard to Mesopotamia. What would happen? You have not at present got there the material for forming a cohesive government. You have got a considerable number of tribes there which own no allegiance to each other or to anybody else, except the Turk, and if the Turk disappears the country would, unless you constitute some central government, be in a state of civil war and strife and confusion. You have no right to do that. If you take away the only central government they have, you must put another in its place. They have been consulted about their wishes in this respect, and, I think, almost without exception, they are anxious that the British Government should stay there. They are very divided as to the kind of independent government they would like. It is not proposed that we should govern this country as if it were an essential part of the British Empire, making its laws. That is not our point of view. Our point of view is that they should govern themselves and that we should be responsible as the mandatory for advising, for counselling, for assisting, but that the government must be Arab. That is a condition of the League of Nations, and we mean to respect it.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: There are cheers behind you now.

The PRIME MINISTER: That is a view that is accepted by the whole of the Allies, and, I am perfectly certain, by every Member in this House. We will respect the solemn undertaking which we gave to the Allies in November, 1918, upon that subject, but it would be fatal unless some country undertook the responsibility, the supreme responsibility, of constituting this Government and advising it. What other country will undertake that responsibility except Great Britain? To hand it over to anyone else would be contrary to the wishes of the Arab population there. They absolutely agree that they do not want Turkish rule again. They
are also agreed that they want the British Government and British supervision. When they come to consider whether they would have a member of the Shereefian over them, or somebody else, they are hopelessly divided, and that is one of the difficulties. We have no right to talk as if we were the mandatory of Mesopotamia, when the Treaty with Turkey is not yet completed. When that has been finally decided, and the question of who the mandatories are has been settled, we shall certainly claim the right as the mandatory Power of Mesopotamia, including Mosul.
I come now to the question of the position in Central Europe. When my right hon. Friend, the Member for the Platting Division of Manchester (Mr. Clynes), talks as if we were responsible for the wretchedness of Austria and Ger-many he seems to have forgotten there has been a war, a war provoked by them. The enormous devastation and the great burdens and great losses have caused a good deal of damage and of suffering and of misery in other lands, but naturally the vanquished suffer most. He says, "Eighteen months have elapsed since peace was made, since hostilities ceased. What is that in face of terrific devastation of that kind? Does the right hon. Gentleman really imagine that we can in eighteen months reconstruct the shattered countries I How can he expect it? Look at what is happening in Germany. He talks about credits. There is a revolution there and you cannot get credits for a country when there is revolution. It is, first of all, essential that they should have settled government. He suggests, and I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley rather suggested also, that the reparation we demanded had something to do with it. What has it got to do with it? I should like to know what this really means. Does it mean we ought to abandon reparation? If not, what does it moan? Does he mean to say "the suffering of Austria is due to the demand for reparation and the suffering of Germany is due to the demand for reparation—therefore, give it up?" Is that what the right hon. Gentleman wants? Does lie suggest we should give it up? Let him look at France. France has a debt which is about equal to the War Debt of Germany, and with a population of
about 40,000,000 against 70,000,000 in Germany. In addition to that, France, through the action of Germany, has a liability for repairing her devastated territory which probably will cost her three or four thousand millions sterling. What does that mean? It means that, in the case of France, which is the victor, France which was not in the least responsible for the War, France which has lost more of her children in proportion to population than Germany, France whose industrial provinces are devastated in a way that no country has ever been destroyed before, every Frenchman will have to bear per head twice the liability for the War which they have won and for which they were not responsible, than that borne by the German people. Add their War debt to the cost of reparation, and to the cost of reconstruction, and take the population of the two countries into account, and you will find that unless France gets something from Germany, every Frenchman will have to pay two pounds for every one pound that will be paid by the Germans, for a war for which France was not in the least responsible. How could we go to France and say to her, Give up your reparation, surrender your claim, think of humanitarian principles? That is a claim which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman, if he were in my place sitting at the Peace Conference, would not have the heart to make. Therefore I take it from him, although he is silent when I ask him the question, that he does not ask France to abandon her claim for reparation.

Mr. CLYNES indicated dissent.

The PRIME MINISTER: I understand the right hon. Gentleman is not asking that. Very well, then let us find out exactly what he does mean? Is it to be suspended until Germany is on her feet and until Germany is able to pay? I agree that at the present moment Germany cannot pay when she is unable to feed her population, and we are taking that into account. My right hon. Friend does not know what the facts are. We have repeatedly allowed Germany credits which come in front of reparation in order to enable her to get a start. My right hon. Friend, the Member for Paisley, said, and I hope ho will correct me if I am wrong, that the time has come for revising the Peace Terms. There is no need
for revision—none. Germany, under a clause of the Versailles Treaty, can estimate the damage and can estimate her own capacity and make her own offer. She has not done so. If Germany wants a loan, which will not come after reparation and therefore be impossible to be placed on any market, let her make her case. She can make it to the Reparation Committee and to the governments. I agree that until Germany is enabled to start her industries she cannot pay. It is not merely in the interests of Germany, but it is in the interests of France, of Great Britain, and of the world that she should start. But let her put her case. There is a great difference between that and saying, "We are going to let her off, that she is not going to make up that loss of this terrific devastation which she has wantonly inflicted upon a perfectly innocuous neighbour in order to destroy her neighbour's industries." That is something that justice would not tolerate for one moment. It is, therefore, for Germany to carry out that part of the Treaty, to assess herself what she regards as her liability, to make her proposals as to how she is going to pay. If she says it is quite impossible for her to begin unless she is able to purchase raw materials, and that in order to purchase raw materials she must get credit, let her make her case. It will be considered fairly. My right hon. Friend said that there is one absolute barrier to any fair consideration, and that is the fact that the Reparation Commission must come to a perfectly unanimous decision. I do not believe that is going to be a bar. I do not believe that France—which is naturally the most sensitive in this respect because she has suffered more than anybody else, or Belgium, which has also suffered—will stand in the way of a fair and reasonable proposal which is put forward in order to enable Germany to meet her legitimate responsibilities. In fact I am certain that France will never take up that attitude, but there must be a definite, clear indication that Germany means to discharge her liabilities. If there is, I am sure she will be treated fairly and equitably and in the spirit of the statement of the Italian Prime Minister, with which I completely agree. But there must be first of all a clear intention indicated by Germany that she really means to carry out her treaty to the utmost of her resources.
Up to the present she has not been able to do so, but it is a mistake to assume that Germany and Austria are the only people who are suffering in consequence of the War. French industries are suffering. I think it was yesterday, or the day before, that there was a deputation from Paris of Ministers and others who came over to this country to beg for coal for France. They told me that the French industries had only 37 per cent. of the coal which they had before the War. We are short of coal in this country, and certain industries here are going short time, but there is nothing comparable to that here. But why is France short of 63 per cent. of her coal? It is because her coal mines were deliberately destroyed by Germany, I am not in the least speaking in a vindictive spirit towards a vanquished foe. That is not the British temper. The British temper is lather, when a man is beaten, to offer one's hand and almost forget; but there are certain things we must not forget, not in order to nourish vengeance—quite the reverse—but in order to do justice to a neighbour that is suffering at this moment. Our first duty is to see that France gets fair play; not to trample on Germany. That policy would be a stupid policy which would excite and prepare fresh war, of which, Heaven knows, we have had enough. The world surely does not want war again, with 10,000,000 of young people slaughtered and all this horror which has been described by my right hon. Friend in Central Europe. We do not want that, and that is not why I am talking in this sense. It is not because I want to see Germany punished, it is not because I would not say she thoroughly deserves it, it is because I want to see that, at any rate, justice is done within the limits and the possibilities of the case. You do not prevent fresh wars by making the victim, the man who is not responsible, suffer more than the man who is responsible, and that is all I wish to say in that respect. I am all, and more than all, for seeing that Germany is not crippled by the way in which reparation is levied. I am all for entering in a judicial spirit into the claim which is made against her, and into her capacity for payment. I am against exacting anything that would be beyond the fair possibilities of the
case, but I think she must make up the damage she has inflicted upon these countries, and in order' to enable her to do so the representatives of this country will always support any fair and reasonable proposal which is put forward on behalf of Germany, that credits should be raised in order to enable her to re-establish her industries. Beyond that I do not think it is possible for us to go.
My right hon. Friend wanted to hand over the question of reparation to the League of Nations. I think that would wreck the League of Nations. The League of Nations consists of a very large number of countries, great and small, some of them that were neutral in the War, neutral from fear, and it is putting them in a very invidious position to ask them to adjudicate between two, three and four great Powers who are their neighbours. I think a far better plan is to trust to the sense of justice and to the wisdom and to the statesmanship of the countries that are directly concerned. Unless you carry with you the sense of France and of Italy and of Great Britain, what good will it do to the League of Nations? You must make those countries feel that fair and reasonable treatment is meted out to them. That, I think, would be much better done by Germany making a direct appeal to them, and not trying to get round them by, I will not say intriguing with other nations on the League, but by engaging the sympathy of other nations, working up parties amongst other nations, over-riding the sentiment of France and of Great Britain and of Italy, by getting a majority of other countries behind them. That would be fatal to the goodwill of the League of Nations, and it would be the beginning of mischief and not of good. This is not one of the questions which I should like to see handed over to the League of Nations. I am firmly confident that by wisdom, by forbearance, and, above all by a demonstration on the part of the German Government of a real desire to carry out the Treaty, by their manifesting an intention to do it, by their doing their best to carry out the Treaty, by their demonstrating clearly where they have failed to do so, that it was owing to no reluctance on their part, but purely for reasons over which they have had no control, the German Government would get reasonable treatment. I believe they
would get generous treatment, and it is in that way that the peace of Europe will be restored and goodwill maintained amongst the nations.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: I should like to say a word about Armenia. I am a little troubled by the exact attitude of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the Cilician position. My right hon. Friend said that the position of Cilicia was made very difficult by the fact that the Turks shot down so many of the Armenians that there no longer was a majority or even an equality between the Armenians and the Turks. I agree, but at the same time it was quite plain that we cannot possibly hand back Cilicia to the Turks. That would be a fatal policy. If we did that it would be almost an invitation to the Turks to complete the work that they had begun and put an end even to the Armenian minority in Cilicia. I do not want to ask my right hon. Friend any questions, but a telegram appeared in the papers as having been sent from the Supreme Council to the League of Nations when it was sitting in Paris. I do not know exactly what was in the telegram because a very imperfect account of it was published in the papers, but there was apparently a suggestion made that the League of Nations should in some way or another take over the responsibility for Armenia or at any rate for the Armenians in the Southern district. What the exact proposal was I do not know

The PRIME MINISTER: We have done so, but the League of Nations, I under stand, are reluctant to take it over, and I think for very strong reasons. They say "Yes, but what is cur sanction, what about the customs, what ports should we have?" Of course, if the League of Nations have no objection to undertake the protection of the Armenians, we shall be very glad indeed.

6.0 P.M.

Lord R. CECIL: I did not really wish to provoke my right hon. Friend to make any answer. What I was going to suggest to him was, I hope, the influence of the British Government, and the British representative on the League of Nations, will always be exercised to induce the League to take up responsibilities rather than reject them. The second thing I wanted to say was this; I quite agree the difficulties
are enormous, but it is possible that the League might be able to find some means of supplying the needs of the Armenians, provided the money were found by the whole of the nations of the League. That would be a conceivable policy. At any rate, what I do wish to press very strongly upon my right hon. Friend is the great disaster, not only to the League, but to the whole world, if we really have to say we have no means of protecting these unhappy people in Cilicia. I am sure that is a position which my right hon. Friend, when he considers it, will see it is quite impossible for us to take up. We cannot do it. We have pledged ourselves over and over again in this House and elsewhere to stand by and protect the Armenians. Let us not desert them now. My right hon. Friend appeared to contrast the great advantages we should obtain if we remained in Mesopotamia with the great difficulties if we remained in Cilicia. I am sure this country would rather forego the advantages in Mesopotamia than fail in our honourable and humanitarian duties in Cilicia. There is a second part of the telegram which appeared in the papers which seemed to show that minorities in Turkey should be taken under the guarantee of the League of Nations in the same way as in Poland and elsewhere. There, again, I think that is a most hopeful and interesting suggestion, and I trust our representative on the League will support it to the utmost of his power. I quite see the difficulty, but no one can talk to the Greek authorities, for Instance, about the condition of affairs along the Pontine Coast without seeing that something of this kind should be done. The people have not been quite as badly treated, though nearly as badly treated by the Turks in the recent war as the Armenians, and that in defiance of the fact that when in a position to do so, they voluntarily protected the Mussulman population in their hands. I think they have quite as strong a claim upon us as Armenians elsewhere, and I do hope some means may be arrived at to give them adequate and effective security under the League of Nations.
I should like to say a word or two about the position of the Central Empires. No one disputes what my right hon. Friend said, that the French claim to reparation is immensely strong. I do
not deny it. It is so strong that I am sometimes afraid that it disturbs the balance of the judgment of some eminent Frenchmen. It is very natural—no one would criticise it for a moment—that people who suffered, and who have seen their countrymen suffer to the extent they have, should say that these Germans must pay, and that becomes an obsession so overwhelming in their minds that they do not always reflect that, if you try to insist on enormous sums to repay them, the only result is that you will lose all possibility of any substantial repayment at all. I was very glad to hear all my right hon. Friend said. He will allow me to say that I think it very unfortunate that we are put in the position we now are by the enactment in the Treaty of the Clauses dealing with the indemnity. I think they were disastrous. I always thought so, and have never concealed my opinion. They always appeared to me to be absolutely indefensible. You were going to tie round the Germans and Austrians an undefined and an enormous weight of debt. They did not know what it was to be, but you were going to say to every Austrian and every German, so long as that was undefined, "Every time you work the produce of your work is going, not to your country, but to your enemy. Every farthing got, beyond what' is actually consumed in the country, is to go to the enemy." The Reparation Commission had even power to overlook every single expenditure, and to see that nothing whatever was being spent which could possibly go to the Allies. That was to put the whole population in a position of absolute hopelessness.
I know there are some Members of this House who regard me and those who think with me as humanitarian fools. I cannot help it. I hear from everyone who comes back from Germany and from Austria the same account—the absolute hopelessness, not of the rich people, but of the poor people. I saw a woman—a relative of mine—who arrived two nights ago, and the first word she used, without my suggesting it, was the hopelessness of the situation. I have seen many others who have recently returned. My right hon. Friend has had the same report from his officials, and there are many admirable officials in Germany at this moment. While the people are left in that position, it is impossible for them to get on their
legs again. You must give them a hope, or otherwise they will not be able to exert themselves. Take the present disturbances in the Ruhr district. I do not suppose my right hon. Friend knows what is going on there, but we see in the papers that that is where the greatest disturbances are taking place. I am told that reports were received as far back as July as to the position of the Ruhr district, and it was then pointed out that the position was hopeless, the population almost starving, unnourished, and unable to work. The whole world is Starving for coal at this moment, and the Ruhr district is one of the great coal-producing districts. So long as the disturbances go on in that area, it means a further increase in the want of coal in France and the whole world. Every day that it goes on, every day work is stopped there, it means the death of so many more babes and invalids. That is no exaggeration. It is true, and I venture to say to my right hon. Friends upon the other side of the House that I hope they will very seriously consider that aspect of the international problem before they rush rashly into an industrial fight, however right they may be. I know nothing about it. This is a tremendous position in Europe, and everyone who interferes with the coal supply of the earth at this minute is taking a terrific responsibility.
I have said that my purpose in rising was not to criticise my right hon. Friend, but to make the position clear. I most heartily welcome what he said. I hope ho is not optimistic. I hope that the German Government will read most attentively what he has said, and will come forward with a serious proposal to fix this amount. I am sure that is a practical proposal. I hope he is not unduly optimistic in believing there will be no difficulty in arriving at a reasonable, fair and equitable amount. For, after all, the position is exactly the reverse of what is was before the Treaty was signed. Until the Treaty was signed, we were in the position of saying that, unless we got terms which we thought fair, we could not sign the Treaty. We have now to convince everybody—not this country merely, but every single one represented on the Reparation Commission—that the proposal is fair. If they do not think so, they can reject it. I hope my right hon. Friend is not unduly optimistic in thinking he will be able to persuade all the
Allies of this country. Certainly, I most fully accept the general principles he has laid down to-day. I trust they will be persevered in by the Government relentlessly, and without any vacillation or alteration, and then there will be, for the first time, some hope of reconstruction, for without reconciliation in Europe reconstruction is impossible.

Colonel LAMBERT WARD: I have listened with the greatest interest to the remarks which have been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Platting Division (Mr. Clynes), and what I should like to ask them, with regard to the remarks they made about Vienna and Austria, is whether they have been there to see those things with their own eyes, or whether they have been basing their statements upon official reports which have reached this country. If they have been there, I can only say they have viewed the situation through anything but rose-coloured spectacles, and if they have been basing their statements on reports, I would like to suggest, although it does not become me to suggest anything to two such distinguished statesmen, that reports in these days only too frequently subordinate truth to political propaganda. I think there is misunderstanding in this country at the present time with regard to what is actually the position in Austria. I know that the impression I had some little time ago proved to be absolutely wrong. When I visited Vienna and Austria generally, towards the end of last month, I had formed an impression which I believe was shared, and is shared, by a large number of people in this country. I did not travel to Vienna by the Entente train. I travelled slowly across Germany and entered the Austrian Republic at Passau, and then travelled down the Danube to Lienz and Vienna. I travelled by ordinary slow train, and very slow it was, conversing with the people I met, and generally endeavouring to get an impression of the true state of affairs of that country. When in Vienna, I lived at a small hotel right away from the centre of the town in an unfashionable—I might almost say in a poor district. I kept myself especially free from official associations, because I wanted to see for myself what things were, and I did not particularly want to see what the officials wished to show me. I expected to find
Vienna a city of the dead, a city deserted, streets unlit, and the only inhabitants a few famine-stricken, shivering people in shawls and rags at street corners: possibly even a few dead still lying un-buried in the gutters. Nothing could be further from the truth. When I had been driven to 17 hotels and I was told only at the seventeenth that I could find accommodation, I began to come to the conclusion that there were still some people who had not suffered from the famine, the cholera, typhus, or the various other horrors about which we read in the papers. To toll the truth, at the present time Vienna is indulging in an absolute orgy of reckless gaiety. It is crowded to an extent which makes London appear almost empty. The theatres, the concert halls, the cinemas, and the restaurants are all in full swing, and more crowded than ever before. Streams of English electric cars run in every direction, taxis, motor-cars, carriages, and cabs all add to the general confusion.
Food is to be had in plenty, but at an appalling price. There was apparently no coal to bring the necessaries of life to the city, but there was plenty to run the electric light and the trams all day and most of the night. Money is being lavished on luxuries to a perfectly appalling extent. On Shrove Tuesday a ball was given at the concert house—one of the many given that night in the city. That concert house is a huge building about the size of the Albert Hall. It was blazing with electric light from top to bottom and from dusk to dawn. Ten thousand people certainly were there, each of whom had paid for admission a price a pre-war equivalent of which would have been £4 per ticket. The only drink served was champagne. In the present value of the exchange champagne costs between £20 and £30 per bottle. But underlying all this extravagance there is no doubt a very largo amount of severe and hopeless suffering. The working classes have had their wages raised, not doubled or trebled as here, but thirty or forty times, with the result that they are in much the position they were in before the War. The middle classes, the professional classes, and the people with small incomes are practically starving. I must say I did not see any great signs of suffering in the streets, although I looked for them. The people were apparently well fed and they were well clad. At any
rate, in the larger thoroughfares 50 per cent. were better dressed than I am, which perhaps is not saying much! There was none of that hopeless misery in the faces of the people that one used to see amongst one's own men in the early days of the War in France. The population of Vienna is certainly not in that pitiable condition in which the French and Belgian refugees were in the early days of the War. Personally I could see no reason for the heart-breaking accounts as to suffering in Vienna which had appeared in the English newspapers, and I can only conclude that there is some scheme of subsidised propaganda at work designed, perhaps, to discredit the Treaty of Peace, and also to soften the hearts and loosen the purse-strings of the Allied peoples.
The death rate in the city is low. Infant mortality is high. But I think I am right in saying there are certainly three towns in England where it is worse. Children between the ages of one and five are suffering severely from lack of milk, and will, no doubt, feel the effect of that suffering for the rest of their lives. There are two hospitals in Vienna crowded with sick children. But if we were to sweep London from end to end, as is being done in Vienna, and collected all the serious cases of tuberculosis, malnutrition, and rickets, I think we could show a hospital full of sick children as distressing as anything there is to be seen at the present time in Vienna. At the present moment there is no actual or acute want. The prospect for the future is hopelessly black.
To understand the condition of Vienna to-day one must compare the position now with the position which Vienna occupied in the life of Central Europe before the War and the position she is likely to occupy in the future. Before the War Vienna was the centre of a rich empire of something between 50,000,000 and 60,000,000 of population. That empire possessed everything necessary for human life and comfort. There was coal in Bohemia. There was oil in Calicia. There was any amount of corn from the rich arable plains of Hungary. There was every kind of mineral wealth. In the centre of it crouched Vienna, a gigantic spider, a gigantic parasite stretching out its tentacles, and sucking up the blood and the riches of these various provinces. Everything
went to Vienna. Everybody went there to spend his or her money. The rich Bohemian manufacturer, the big Hungarian landowner, all had their town houses or their flats in Vienna. The others, less well off, went to stay at the big luxurious hotels. Vienna lived on catering for the amusement of all these rich people. It was a parasitical industry. I think there was hardly a trade in Vienna which was not of the luxury order. Its jewellers and leather workers were amongst the most skilled in Europe, and every Viennese manufacture was of a very high-class and expensive order. In addition to that, Vienna provided the waiters, cooks, chauffeurs, amusements, bands, and every kind of vice that is known to civilisation. The whole of that wealth and of those supplies have, so to speak, been turned off the tap.
Gone are the coal mines of Bohemia. Gone are the oil-fields of Calicia. The rich arable plains of Hungary no longer belong to them. The rich Bohemian manufacturer no longer has his house in Vienna. If he had money to spend, which he has not at the present time, he would not be allowed to go there, but would be compelled to spend it in his new country. Worse than that. The area of the arable country in the modern Austrian Republic is very limited. It is a pastoral rather than agricultural country. The Danube, which higher up in Bavaria and lower down in Hungary, runs through magnificent arable valley 20 to 30 miles wide, in Austria is a narrow rapid river running between steep banks—at Passau the hills close in on the river, and they do not open out again until after Pressburg, and all that way the valley is narrow and the banks are steep, and provided with a very small amount of agricultural country; in fact, so small is the amount of arable land, that the agricultural communities will be hard put to provide food for themselves. In addition to that they have Vienna, a gigantic city of some 2½ million inhabitants, accustomed to every luxury and every extravagance.
Worse than that. The population of Vienna do not appear to realise that their future existence is in danger. They seem to think that they are merely passing through a cycle of bad times which will disappear in due course automatically and without any effort on their part. To put the matter bluntly, and in plain language,
Vienna is spending her substance in riotous living, and is appealing to the Allies to provide her with the necessaries of life. I have already alluded to the atmosphere of luxury and extravagance. Everything both private and municipal is run on the same lines. The policemen directing the traffic at the cross-roads was so gorgeously attired that I hesitated to ask him the way. It was only after consulting a civilian as to whether this gorgeously attired individual was a policeman or an officer of the new army—and being assured rather abruptly that they had no army officers now—that I ventured to ask the way. The stationmasters and the assistant-stationmasters at every wayside station were wearing a uniform the cost of which must have been at least 50 first-class fares from one end of the country to the other. Consider how it would be if every Stationmaster in England was wearing uniform the cost of which was 50 first-class fares from London to Inverness, and I think the pathetic account of transport difficulties of which we hoard yesterday from the Minister of Transport would be vastly increased.
Electric cars are running day and night in every direction, although not one in a hundred thousand of the millions of people is engaged in any real productive work The banks and offices are crowded. The only business going on is speculating in the rise and fall of values and gambling in the various exchanges. The establishments have done a big business, and have sold most of their stock. But some of the people have spent the money on riotous living, and others, who have saved it, now find that the purchasing power has been so diminished by the action of the Government that it will no longer purchase anything at all. The Government have printed so much paper money to pay enormously increased wages that it no longer has any purchasing power. I think until something is done in that direction there can be no hope of any improvement or any stabilising of the exchanges. The people of Vienna at the present moment are attempting to live by taking in each other's washing. They know of the scarcity of food which exists, because the leading articles in the papers and the paragraphs deal with the amount of food that may be expected from the Allied countries. In spite of that no one is putting a hand's turn to endeavour to
increase production. On Sundays the whole of the able-bodied population sit in cafés, smoking and playing chess and billiards, or walking up and down the middle of the street. No one does anything towards increasing the food supply. Men are at work in the public parks planting flowers and shrubs. It does not occur to anybody to attempt to grow potatoes. There is waste land in plenty, but no one makes any attempt to cultivate it. I was told that the working classes had allotments in the neighbourhood of the city, but it took me a considerable time to find them, and it was only when I got among the peasant proprietors some distance from Vienna that I found work was proceeding. The peasants, indeed, are working hard, but the horses which they should have to assist them to till their fields are driving people to dances and concerts in Vienna. Across the frontier in Bavaria the peasants are attempting to plough a thousand acres with one horse and an ox, and a largo portion of last year's stubble is still untouched. Surely it would be possible to convert some of these motor and taxi-cab drivers into drivers of the plough. Attempts have been made to ration the foodstuffs, but the efforts of the authorities are defeated by the illicit dealer, largely on account of the absurd maximum prices which are often fixed below the cost of production. Government action with regard to maximum prices has alienated the sympathy of the peasants, and this does not tend to in-crease the amount of ground cultivated, and the result is that they restrict their energy to producing simply what they require for their own immediate use. It is perfectly hopeless to suggest that anything may be done to improve this appalling and hopeless situation. It is notoriously difficult to help people who will not help themselves, and so far the Viennese and the Austrians have made practically no efforts in that direction. In my opinion, other than the indemnity clauses, in regard to which I entirely agree with what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil), I think it will be useless to attempt to modify the Treaty, especially with regard to territorial limitations. Jugo-Slavia, Czecho-Slavakia, Hungary, and Poland have now been freed from Austrian domination, and to attempt to force them to return would
mean instant war. They hate the Austrians, and they have for the Viennese that contempt which an agricultural population always has for a population of mountebanks. On one occasion I had to act as interpreter between a party of Hungarian peasants and a railway official. They spoke but little English and not a word of German. They told me that they were well on their way back to settle in their native country. That is the spirit which pervades not only Hungary, but Czecho-Slovakia and Jugo-Slavia. The Austrian Empire never was homogeneous, and it was always an ill-assorted community of nations forced into a semblance of unity by the pressure of the Turk, but that danger no longer exists. For the last 50 years they have only been kept together by the prestige of the army and the personality of the late Emperor. The one is now shattered and the other is dead. A common danger may once more compel them to unite, but this can never be done by treaty. As I said before, the problem of what to do with Austria and Vienna is a hopeless one, and, in my opinion, the continued existence of Austria in its present condition is an anachronism and an impossibility.
If we are prepared to accept the people of Vienna, and to a lesser extent Austria, Poland and Czecho-Slovakia, as our permanent pensioners, well and good, but we must remember that so long as they continue their present policy there will not be the least improvement in two years' time. They are clamouring for coal, credits, and raw material to get their industries going, but if we give them the raw material—I do not know where we are going to find it—it by no means follows that there will be any market for their manufactured goods, because Czecho-Slovakia, Hungary and Jugoslavia are already shut on by a wall of hostile tariffs, and I do not think hon. Members on this Bench would consent to Austrian-made goods coming to this country.
At any rate, it is no use providing Austria or Vienna with credits to get their industries going and at the same time introducing Dumping Bills into this House. If we give large credits, the only immediate effect will be to improve the purchasing power of the community, and that would lead to further gambling with the exchange. However large our credits,
they will only enable the Government to indulge in further extravagance. The exchange will rise first, and then fall until it is not of the value of the paper on which the notes are printed. This is suggested at a time when we need capital and credit here in the reconstruction of our own industries, and I think we should hesitate before we pour out British capital to be wasted in Viennese extravagance. I wish to say in conclusion that, other than a humanitarian interest, I have no interest whatever in Austria, and they are welcome to dance and dine and carry on just as they like, and they may gamble in every currency under the sun. All that is no concern of mine, but I fail to see why this country should provide the wherewithal to do it.

Lieut. - Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: My only justification for taking part in this Debate is that I have returned from Germany so recently as to include one or two days of the revolution. There are many conditions in Germany which we are quite unaware of in this country. I will try and deal with one or two of the items of that peace which has been described as one which passeth all understanding. There is one point which is of very vital importance to Germany about which they feel very strongly, and it is the size of their army. There is a demand for a bigger army from two parties in the community. One demand comes from the Military party, who frankly fear Russian Belshevism, and their point is that now that the Allies have taken away Germany's powers of resistance from the point of view of invasion, for that reason we are morally responsible for the defence of that country should an invasion come from the East. When we examine that position I think there is no proof that such a concentration is taking place in Russia, but there is a very great deal to show that the military party wish for as big an army as possible in order to put themselves in power again. For the reasons I have stated, I think that demand for a bigger army from the military side may be dismissed.
In the second place, there is also a demand for a bigger army from the middle classes. They want a bigger army to keep order, and from our point of view it is of the essence of the problem that order in Germany should be kept somehow, because, without order, there is no chance of the Peace Terms being
carried out, and there is no hope for anybody in the country. Their fear is of Bolshevism from within. This problem of Bolshevism should be investigated apart from any strong feelings that we may have about Bolshevism in Russia. We must discriminate between Soviet government and Bolshevism in the same way as we discriminate between a republic and the guillotine. At one time, those two thoughts were intimately associated, and to-day we are rather inclined to fall into the error of associating Soviet government with atrocities, but they are not necessarily mixed together, and if Germany should decide in favour of a Soviet government, and if they can get it in a constitutional way and without disorder, then it is not our business in any way to interfere. Under Bolshevism, as we look upon it to-day, we have seen atrocities and cruelty which almost pass our belief, but we must not put that down as an ideal of Bolshevism, but more as the result of conditions outside, that of hunger, misery, helplessness, hopelessness, and political oppression. Those are results which lead to atrocities wherever a revolution has taken place.
What we must ask ourselves to do is, are we by our action imposing on Germany such conditions that will lead them to the same fate as Russia. I do not think I can be accused of being in any way a pro-German. I was elected, as so many others were, on the ticket of "Hang the Kaiser and make the Germans pay." What I wish to point out is that at the time we were elected we were extraordinarily ignorant of the position of Germany. We thought even when she was beaten that she was still a very powerful nation, and we hated her because we feared her, and fear is the basic principle of hatred. But to-day we have to realise that Germany is not only beaten, but as a Power she has disappeared off the map, and does not exist. Therefore, from the point of view of fear, as far as Germany is concerned, we might as well be afraid of an invasion of the Isle of Man.
I am afraid that a recitation of the conditions would probably bore this House. We know that on account of the absence of raw material the Germans cannot produce a single ship for another ten years, and they have no possibility of getting an adequate coal supply. In Germany clothing is so short that the working man has
no underclothing at all except that which is made of paper. Potato bread is eaten everywhere, and you cannot get ordinary broad unless you pay something in the neighbourhood of 500 marks for a loaf Milk is unprocurable for women and children, and we ought to know, although we do not, that the mortality among the children is enormous to-day. I maintain that these conditions cannot go on very long without some cataclysm occurring. The whole of Germany seems to be living on a volcano. The people are groping in the dark for support and guidance. They are surrounded by bitter, vindictive enemies. It is not unnatural that they turn to England, not with any great feeling of hope, perhaps, but at any rate believing that this country will be just to them. One ought to record here the fact that, during the many meetings that took place at the outbreak of the revolution, it was proposed by many speakers that the English Commission should take over the government of Germany until such time as they could have an election. That does not show hatred at any rate, and it is an enormous tribute to our soldiers in Berlin and in the occupied provinces, because such an expression could never have come from the Germans had our soldiers been a lot of swaggering bullies, as they are sometimes represented by certain hon. Members here.
Let me mention some of the pin-pricks—some of the causes of complaint on the part of the Germans. One of them is what they described as the open wound from Basle to Holland. That is a difficulty which wants to be seen to be appreciated. One cannot be surprised at the strong feeling of the Germans when, under the existing conditions of high food prices and difficulties of exchange, they see the food they so much require going out of the country in a way which really means death to their country. I am sure some of our Allies are not so short of food as really to need to take what little food there is in Germany to-day, and I should like to see some action taken by ourselves to prevent this export of food from Ger many. Then, again, there is the question of the guns and shells. All these have been melted down for raw material, and I am certain it was never the intention of the Allies that that raw material should be carted out of the country. That seems an unnecessary penalty to impose upon the Germans. Another thing is coal. We
know, of course, the arrangements which have been made about coal in Germany. It is perfectly right, no doubt, that they should have been made, but in addition to that, the Germans have had to surrender an enormous amount of rolling stock. Much of it has been delivered to our Allies and has been found to be too heavy to go over their bridges. The wagons are consequently standing idle in rows, while in Germany coal is accumulating at the pit mouth simply because there is no means of transporting it. That seems to me a most preposterous situation, and one productive of good to nobody. Then, of course, there is always considerable feeling about the "unknown indemnity." If they could only get that settled, if they could get some sum fixed, however big, it would stimulate them to start to pay it off. I do not think it would be politic at this moment for mc to deal with the occupied areas, but I should like to get a declaration from our Government that the areas we are occupying will always be occupied by ourselves and by nobody else. I think that would be very much appreciated, for instance, by the people of Cologne.
We have declared very often here that we are not out to wage war against the German people, but only against German militarism, and I say here that if German militarism springs up again in Germany, I would be in favour of doing everything to secure its absolute destruction. I would use the blockade and every other form of repression in order to defeat it. I do think, however, that recent occurrences in that country go far to show the real feeling of the Germans towards these people. The object of the revolution was to enable the militarists to got back their régime; they had all the weapons and the guns, and yet the people in Berlin turned them out, and did so notwithstanding the fact that they had very few arms. They shed their own blood in doing it, and there could be no greater test of sincerity than that of a people being willing to give up their lives for such a purpose. I want to impress upon the House the extraordinary dislike there is throughout the middle and lower classes for the militarist régime and for the Kaiser. If the Kaiser had died in battle, there might have been some affection for him; but in the time of his country's need he
ran away with as much money as he could collect, and he will never be forgiven for that. The people will never have the militarist party back in power. We ought to look upon Germany, therefore, in a rather different way. We should remember that the militarist power formerly had control of the people, and could make the whole country do as it chose. If we had had a bad Government during the War, with a similar military machine, it could possibly have got our people to do exactly as it desired. But now that is cleared away, and I venture to say there is a sincere desire among the German people to start again from the bottom and, not to work up to a great Imperial Power, but to become a working Germany, because what they really need to-day is enough food to live on. If we are to get that reparation we have heard spoken of to-night, the only chance of ever securing it is to see that some cataclysm does not happen. The feeling is, in fact, that, as long as we can keep them fed and working, they will endeavour to meet the obligations they are under to us.

Captain ELLIOT: I intervene only on the grounds of personal experience, because 1, too, have not long returned from the countries of Central Europe around which the Debate has turned this afternoon. There is no doubt, as my hon. and gallant Friend opposite said, that the propaganda which has gone on throughout the whole of the War has brought the mind of the average man to a condition which can best be described by what a soldier once said to me: that he and his fellows believed nothing at all that they read, and only half what they actually saw with their own eyes. In regard to the discussion of the problem of the starving countries of Central Europe, although, no doubt, a certain amount of extravagance is going on amongst the upper classes and in the cities, one is surprised to find that the phrase "dead towns" cannot be applied to them in the sense that it was applied to dead towns and cities in the War. Those of us who have been at the War have seen really dead towns, like those of Péronne and Bapaume, where there was grinding, devastating misery and suffering, and although it is undoubtedly true that there is much misery and suffering in Vienna, we ought not to condemn the whole people there because wealthy profiteers
are flaunting their luxuries in the face of the starving poor, and we have no right to say, because these unworthy citizens are wasting the few remaining resources of the country, therefore we will not give any help. It is very difficult to get a proper focus of the condition of things in Vienna or to realise the extent of the fall in value of their money. I had to go to Budapest, and I was compelled to hire a motor to get there. It is not true to say that the trains and trams are always running. They stop occasionally, and many of the theatres and opera houses are closed from time to time. These places live from hand to mouth, and if for transport reasons the coal supply fails, then they have to close down. For the hire of that motor I paid 35,000 kroner, and the only thing that terrified me was lest some generous American should re-establish the value of the mark whilst I was away, for then it would have cost me something like £1,200 for that motor, and I should have found it necessary to apply for the Chiltern Hundreds, as I should have been unable to retain my seat in this House. As it happened, the charge for that car worked out at less than I would have had to pay for the hire of a motor in this country.
7.0 P.M.
What we have to bear in mind is the value of the money to the Austrian workman. Ten shillings of paper money, such as I hold in my hand at this moment, is not worth twopence-halfpenny to-day. It is very difficult for us to get a real conception of the value of money. What may be sport to one in paying three, four, or five hundred kroner for a dinner is death to the Austrian working man, who cannot afford to pay these gigantic prices, and consequently is suffering terribly. Another point in regard to the wealthy profiteer is that undoubtedly in Vienna under a Socialist Government—and it seems to be a natural outcome of such governments—there is widespread corruption and inefficiency. The officials cannot live on their salaries, and accept bribes right and left. Consequently the rich can get anything they choose to ask for. But the rich are the very smallest proportion of the population of this great city, which contains over 2,000,000 people. The scum always rises to the top, and visitors to Vienna see the scum carrying on in peace as they carried on during
the four years of the War which brought to Austria absolute ruin and devastation.
7.0 P.M.
Many things have been said against the Peace Treaty of Versailles, as being responsible for the trouble in connection with the coal supply of Vienna, but it is not entirely responsible, for even in the Peace Treaty Clauses were inserted stating that a certain amount of coal should be delivered from Bohemia to Austria. That coal was not delivered. They do not get delivery even of the quantities of raw material arranged for in the Peace Treaty, and it is scarcely fair to blame the Allies for the wretched state into which the country has fallen. The fact, however, that it is due to the blindness, the brutality and the spite of the neighbouring countries does not alter our responsibility for such a thing. There is no doubt that, for right reasons or for wrong reasons, by accident or by ability, the peoples of the Western Powers, and of Great Britain in particular, are the kings of the world. They are the sovereigns of all Europe, and we cannot escape from the moral responsibility for the disease, devastation, starvation and misery which exist in any part of Europe. The League of Nations now is only a league of some nations. We hope it will become a league of all nations sooner or later, but there is a league of disease which is international. The microbe knows no frontiers. Pestilence does not care under which flag it kills its victims, and if you allow this disease to swelter and ferment in the centre of these great prosperous communities, there is no saying what illness will not be bred in it, which will overlap all our frontiers and reduce the people of Britain to the same wretched state that the people of Russia are in to-day. That the people of Vienna are suffering terribly, two instances will be enough to show. I went past a shop at three o'clock in the afternoon, and there was a queue there as long as this Chamber. At five in the afternoon the queue was still there. At 11 o'clock it had not moved an inch, on a wet, stormy January night. It stood there all night, and would stand there till nine the next morning, on the chance that half the people in it would be allowed to pay £5 for a pair of boots. The misery and wretchedness that that one queue represents is enough to show the state into which the people have fallen. Again,
there is the fact that they are exporting their children—the mothers are allowing their children to be taken away from them, and sent to Holland and Belgium and Sweden and so on. I regret that the Noble Lady the Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) is not in her place, for she could realise, as I think no man can realise, the state of a family from which a starving child is taken away for six months, fed with all sorts of luxuries and dainties, and petted and spoiled, and then, at the end of the six months, plunged back again into the pit of misery from which it has been withdrawn. That the mother is willing to allow that, for the sake of getting rid of her child for a few months, shows the extent of the disaster and hopelessness that has fallen upon the people of that country.
It is not fair to say that everyone is living in idleness and luxury there. The big locomotive shops in Vienna, and the big motor works, are making a certain amount of effort. The Daimler motor works are employing more men than they ever did before the war. The country could pay its way, and should pay its way. The need for the skilled workmen of Vienna to make and repair the rolling stock of Austria has not passed away because frontiers have been set up, cutting Austria into several conflicting nationalities. Austria could and should be got on its feet again. That some reduction in the population may have to take place is undoubted. There are many skilled workmen in Vienna, able to do work for which the whole world is clamouring to-day—able to make internal combustion engines, able to make railway wagons, able to make all sorts of things for which the whole of the rest of Europe is starving. Putting it on the lowest ground, it would be a good investment to get those people producing the things of which we all stand so badly in need. The mere fact that the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel L. Ward), who has discussed the question of Vienna, agreed that the indemnity Clauses should be waived, was enough to show that ho also agreed that the state of the country was so bad that we could get nothing out of it. I do not put it on the ground of justice or humanity, but merely on the same ground as the old Scots proverb, "Ye canna' tak' the breeks off a Hielan'man." There is nothing you
can get from these people, because they have got nothing. What the Continent is suffering from is the weakness, and not the strength, of Britain. It is not the tyranny of Britain, but the abdication by Britain of its tremendous power. Although the Bohemians—the Czecho-Slovaks—have this surplus of 200,000 tons of sugar, they want to sell it to an overfed country like Holland, where every man already is letting out his waistcoat from over-feeding. They want to sell it to other countries which have far more food than they need. They do not want to sell it to Vienna. Even in Austria itself, in starving Vienna, where the milk supply has fallen from 1,000,000 litres a day to 70,000 litres, the peasants of the country are trying to get export licences to sell their cows to Switzerland, to make Swiss milk and milk chocolate for export to over-fed countries, instead of using the milk to support the children of their own people. That does not do away with our responsibility. Authority has disappeared from those countries, and will need to be imposed from the outside, and it is for the Western powers to do their best to re-establish that authority.
With regard to the state of Hungary, there has been a great deal of discussion and of very wild and prejudiced talk, notably by hon. Members of the other side of the House. I was in Hungary during the general election, and I saw one of the big mass meetings on the eve of the poll, that was addressed by the Hungarian Prime Minister. Nobody takes a general election meeting quite seriously. "The voice of the people is the voice of God," undoubtedly, but one does not suggest that the voice of God is always heard at a general election. That meeting, however, was sincerely convinced, first and fore-most, that they were not going to have Bolshevism; secondly, that they wanted a monarchy; and, thirdly, that they wanted fair treatment for the countries which it was proposed to cut away from Hungary. That was as plain and definite as any audience of 5,000 to 10,000 people could possibly make it. Let hon. Members opposite, who are so keen that we should not interfere in Russia and do any damage to the form of Government which the Russian people have chosen, show the same eagerness with regard to Hungary. If Hungary wants a monarchy, that is the business of Hungary, and not of anybody in this country. There is as much bitterness
and spite and petty malice and un-charitableness shown by the newspapers of the extreme left towards Hungary as has ever been shown by the newspapers of the extreme right towards Soviet Russia. If Russia has, as I believe she has, the right to choose her own form of Government, Hungary has an equal right to choose the form of government that she wishes. We fear that, if the Labour party comes into power—because, of all the belligerent crowds in the whole country, a Labour Government will be the most belligerent—we shall see the Lancashire Fusiliers and the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders sent up the Danube in barges to destroy the Government of Hungary because it is a monarchy, and to re-crect on its ruins a free constitutional Soviet Government, because it is a form of government that appeals to hon. Members opposite. The people want to be ruled by a King. They know what he is, they can get at him, he is responsible, and his son afterwards is responsible. They have had one constitutional president like Karolyi, who was a gambler and a sluggard—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]—I think that is undoubtedly true. He used to lie in bed till 11 or 12 in the morning, and play cards till 2 the next morning. That is not a very creditable thing for any man, and particularly is not a very useful thing for the President of a Republic during a revolution. He handed them over to the Bolshevist government of Bela Kun, which, whatever else may be said about it, was grossly unpopular in the country. That atrocities were committed I have from the Bolshevik Commissars themselves, whom I interviewed on the subject. They said they had tried their best to destroy the gangs that committed those atrocities, but they always said that they did not deny that they had taken place. That Government, which came into power on a Chauvinist programme, was brought into power to preserve the national frontier of Hungary; and, when the Hungarians found that it could not do that, the peasants themselves turned on the Government, and the Government fell from the great weakness of all Soviet Governments, the blockade—not the external, but the internal blockade—of the country against the town. That is what brought it down in Hungary, as undoubtedly it has gone a long way to modify its excesses in Russia. The Hungraian
Bolshevist commissaries were very advanced people. They even regarded Lenin as a bit of a reactionary, and thought he was not one of those people who were preaching the pure milk of the Marxian doctrine. They thought he had created a lot of peasant proprietors, and that that was a very bad thing for any country. They said that the Soviet Government, controlling, as it would, all the ports where things are imported and all the factories where things are made, would be able to raise the prices of those things, and to put the screw on the small holder and bankrupt him. The peasants did not want that sort of thing. If they had split up the big estates they might have had a Bolshevist Government in Hungary, but when they realised that they were not going to escape from the big proprietor, but that it was simply a big official proprietor instead of a big private landowner, they decided that that form of government was not sufficiently in advance of the old form for any man to die for it.
That is the constitutional experiment which is now going on in Central Europe. The Bolshevist form of government has been tried there, and I think it may definitely be said to have failed. Very reckless accusations are being made just now about the Hungarian Government and the White Terror it is carrying on, but if you stir up the spirit of bloodshed and betrayal you can expect no other result. As an instance of the spirit of betrayal which is being stirred up, a lady told me that her cook came to her and said, "Can you tell me, madame, how to get a man denounced as a Bolshevist, because my daughter's fiancé has refused to marry her, and I want to get him shot as a Bolshevist." That is the sort of thing that goes on. When you break up the big laws you do not get liberty, but you get the small law instead. When you destroy the power of the central executive you do not get liberty, but you get the domination and tyranny of the policeman at the street corner, and that is what you will get in this country as you will in all countries where the ruin and the breaking up of law has begun.
In Hungary I inspected some of the prisons and spoke to some people, who were not what you would call reactionary people, but who had done time in gaol as conscientious objectors, and consequently
knew something about the inside of prisons. Certainly, in Budapest, the Bolshevik Commissioners are in prison under what would be called good second division conditions in this country. They have their own clothes, they have cells to themselves, they have books, they have paper, they have writing materials, their friends are allowed to come and sec them and they have food sent in from outside. If all our political prisoners were treated as well as these it would be a credit to the British Empire. Many have been hanged, and it is probable that more executions will take place. Admiral Korthy is, in my opinion, an upright, honourable and just man, and I think that is the opinion of most people who have come in contact with him. Even the extreme Bolsheviks admit that he is personally anxious to do the right thing. But they complain that he has not power enough to make his decisions felt. How more can we weaken and injure his power than by interfering whenever there is a process of trial being carried on? What can be more damaging for any executive than a rumour getting about that it has yielded to the threat of foreign pressure? If these men are not tried and convicted, if legal executions do not take place in Budapest, lynchings take place in the provinces. The peasants and other people take the power into their own hands. The laws under which they are being tried are not now laws, but laws passed about 1812, and if executions do not take place according to law in Budapest they will take place according to lynch law in the provinces.
I wish to repeat the exhortation of my Noble Friend (Lord R. Cecil) with regard to the terrible responsibility that anyone takes who allows a stoppage of the production of coal in this country just now, mine owners or mine workers. The coal that is carrying food to these people is being mined from British mines, is being burnt in British ships, and is bringing food from the ends of the earth. The only hope is that we should remain a great, strong nation producing a surplus of goods out of which we can help these people. That there is want and misery and distress in these countries is undoubted. But it is nothing to what may happen all over Europe. During the railway strike all the coal ships were called for by wireless and turned back to port
and brought back to Great Britain to guard our own people against famine and coal starvation. In the year after the Armistice alone we carried 2,000,000 tons of food to France, and 3,900,000 tons to Italy. We have enormous responsibilities which we cannot by any means escape, and I beg Labour members, particularly those connected with the great mining industry, to reflect and think twice and thrice before they plunge the country into a conflict of which no man can see the end, before they rake out the furnace fires of the ships which are bringing food to Europe, and stop the production of coal which is cooking the dinners of the housewives in the whole of Europe. This responsibility cannot be escaped from, and I beg of them to lay that very seriously to heart.
The League of Nations is more than ever appearing as the only hope for Europe, the only chance we have of coming through this. These new boundaries which are being set up cannot stand, and in many cases they should not be allowed to stand. The only hope is that in this Treaty we have set up what no Treaty has had before—a permanent court of revision by which these things can be discussed in prudence and not in passion, in the cold light of reason and not in the light of burning roofs and burning stack-yards. The mere boundaries of Hungary are impossible. They are ridiculous. No such boundary has ever been seen in the world. You have a range of mountains round Bohemia—the Apple of Bohemia—and, added to the side of it, there is a sort of banana-shaped country called Slovakia, consisting entirely of the tops of high mountains guiding the upper waters of small mountain valleys. The Peace Conference is full of very great and important gentlemen, but they cannot make rivers run sideways across mountains, because they run downhill and not across. They cannot convince a peasant who has to go ten miles down stream to buy an axe or a plough in the county town at the head of a valley where his forefathers have gone before him, that it is to his interest, because he speaks a Slavonic tongue, to leap over 80 miles of mountain tops to get into Bohemia to buy his axe or plough. He will want to go down the water the same as his forefathers have done, and when he realises that this is being stopped by
a frontier to which he is supposed to have consented, he will inevitably ask for the destruction of that frontier; and what I am afraid of is British troops being sent up there, on the plea of the League of Nations, to bully this man and force him back under conditions that he has tried to live in for 18 months and failed. The country of Slovakia consists entirely of the tops of the Carpathian mountains. Ear hath not heard nor eye seen, it hath not entered into the mind of man to conceive any such country as Slovakia as it has been drawn up by the Peace Treaty. You could not possibly conceive it unless you saw it on a contour may. That is one frontier which in my belief will collapse very soon. It ought to be brought before the Peace Treaty and revised there in the light of common sense and not be made into a casual catch-word to cause a now war.
Again, Rumania was badly treated when the Germans got into her country. But she got it all back and more in what she has wrung out of the Hungarians in the last nine months. They have taken everything from Hungary. I was in the Hotel Hungaria, which was a Soviet House during the Bolshevist Revolution, and the Bolshevists did not take a single spoon or fork out of that hotel. When they left it they left the silver-ware in it as it had been when they came in. But there was not a silver spoon or fork left in it after the Rumanians had been in. What the Bolshevists did not take the Rumanians had no hesitation in taking. They took everything, down to wrenching the lavatory basins out of the bedrooms. They took agricultural instruments out of the big Agricultural Institute in Budapest, and machinery for forecasting the weather, which naturally was ruined by the time they had got it to the doors of the museum. Still, it was pretty and glittering and made a pleasant noise when you struck it, and that was enough for the Rumanian soldiers to loot it and take it to their country where it is lying in the carts on the roads, because it is no use to them or anyone else. The Rumanian frontier includes a Magyar community which is planted right in the frontier of Hungary, a sort of Hungarian Ulster, and if you realise what would happen if you put Ulster under the rest of Ireland just now you would have a faint conception of what is happening in this community
where you have a similar number of people put under a rule alien in religion and in culture, which they hate, and as some Ulster men do—I do not know whether they all do—they heartily despise.
I would appeal to the Prime Minister to put some of that ginger into getting the League of Nations going that he put into the conduct of the War, to fight for unity of command against the forces of chaos as he fought for unity of command against the forces of Germany. The danger before civilisation is as great now as it was during the War, and the Prime Minister is the only man with vigour and determination enough, I honestly believe, to carry the thing through. By-elections are all very well, but I believe he has still to a great extent the confidence and trust of a vast proportion of the ordinary people of Great Britain, and he owes a responsibility to the world that he cannot get rid of. He has put in four years of work such as no other man has ever had to put in—work which has broken one after another of the statesmen of the countries of our Allies—but still he has his natural force not abated, ho has enough strength, courage and insight to rouse this country and all Europe to a sense of the dangers which are facing us if we do not look these things in the face and get them settled, and the League of Nations alone is the thing that can do it. The weary cynicism of the French and bankrupt opportunism are no use. The thing has got to be faced and tackled by the ordinary common man, and it is the ordinary common man that I ask the Prime Minister to inspire, to instruct, to organise, and to make the ordinary man realise that we are not out of the wood yet. We are still walking along the very brink of the abyss and the state of Europe is nothing now to what it might be in a year. We have got the force and the strength to get us out of the morass into which we may fall, but we must use every atom of strength and energy, and in particular put away hate out of our path, because this is no question now of enemies, but of saving humanity. It is Britain that is serving as a lighthouse for the whole world, and if it flickers and goes out through our cowardice and folly, half the world will sink in the storm for lack of the guidance which this country alone can give it.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: The House is very greatly indebted to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his most interesting speech. I am very glad he has removed the impression which might be left by a speech delivered a short time ago, the effect of which was to indicate that Vienna was a city living in luxury and that the inhabitants were devoting their time to riotous living. I join with the hon. and gallant Member in the appeal that he has made for the fullest possible use of the machinery of the League of Nations in altering some of the absurd provisions to which he has drawn attention. I want to make a reference to that part of the speech of the Prime Minister in which he dealt with the delay in entering upon negotiations for the Turkish Treaty. The right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) says that the delay was regrettable, and the Prime Minister also regretted the delay. He said that the delay was quite inevitable, and he went on to say that we had hoped that the United States would share the responsibility of mandates in Turkey. I feel sure that the Prime Minister did not wish to lay the blame upon the United States for the delay that had taken place, but I am very much afraid that that will be the effect of the remark. A similar remark was made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in another place last week. He said that the circumstances in which the original delay had taken place were quite well known, and he went on to say that the additional delay was due to the United States. The Prime Minister said the same thing in very similar terms to-night. When the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had spoken I observed in a telegraphic report from Washington that surprise had been expressed by the State Department at his remarks, and I expect that the same surprise will be expressed after the remarks of the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister will not answer the question which I addressed to him, that is upon what he had based his hopes that the United States would accept these mandates, I suggest that there was no reason at all to expect after the month of October—I will not go back beyond that—that the United States would accept the mandates. Therefore, there was no reason why the Treaty should not have been taken up in that month. I hope that the remarks of the Prime Minister
to-night, in which I feel sure he had no intention of throwing blame upon America, will not be taken in that sense in the United States.
With most of what the Prime Minister said I found myself in agreement, but I must hark back to what he said about Mesopotamia. On that subject I did not find myself in agreement with him. He made out a case for the control and administration by this country, not only of the Vilayet of Busra, but of Baghdad and Mosul. He said that the Sherifat of Mosul was a rich country, the resources of which the British Empire would avail themselves. I wonder, if he has studied carefully the report of Sir John Hewitt and Sir Harry Verney, the Liberal candidate for Basingstoke, which was issued in 1919. The inquiry took place at the end of 1918, and these gentlemen made an investigation into our expenditure in Mesopotamia. Sir John says:
Apart from the sums spent upon roads and railways, £2,000,000 may be regarded as expenditure which would benefit the civil population and be of permanent value to the country.
He goes on to say:
There is no doubt that the expenditure incurred during the War far accedes in amount any sum at which the railways can fairly be assessed as n commercial concern.
This is the point which I should like to emphasise, having regard to the remarks of the Prime Minister. The account that Sir John gives of the attempts to promote agriculture are very far from encouraging. That is evidenced in the Report. What, therefore, is left of the great resources of Mesopotamia to which the Prime Minister referred can only be the oil that can he developed in that country. In spite of what the Prime Minister said, I suggest that the sane policy in Mesopotamia would be to cut our losses and to reduce our committments in that country as speedily as possible. As the right hon. Member for Paisley pointed out, there are no natural boundaries to Mesopotamia in the part that we occupy. We have a garrison of 70,000 men there, of whom 18,000 are British, and the annual cost is £16,000,000. From a very small beginning we have acquired a territory—because that is what it amounts to—larger than the country of Italy. Our policy should be to establish as firmly as possible the newly-created Republics of Georgia and Azerbaijan, to
create, as has boon suggested, and as I believe is the intention of the Government, an independent State of Armenia, and to organise but not to control the Sherifats of Mosul and Baghdad, and that we should confine the territory which is administered by ourselves to the Vilayet of Busra.
I should have liked to have developed, but I know the House is anxious to get to other business, the reasons for some of the difficulties with which we have been confronted in regard to our present policy in connection with Constantinople and other matters arising out of the Peace Treaty. What I should have said would have been to impress upon the Government the necessity for reverting to the past practice in which our foreign policy was controlled, not by the Prime Minister at No. 10, Downing Street, but by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. It is only by having the centre of gravity under the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that we can have a fixed policy. The result of the present system—it has been evidenced in what has taken place in regard to Constantinople, in the Adriatic negotiations, in the vacillation of our policy during the last two years in respect of Russia—the result of the present orientation of our foreign policy being under the Prime Minister is that it is conducted with no fixed principles, that it lacks stability of purpose, and that the tendency is for it to become increasingly opportunist and hand-to-mouth. Nothing could be more dangerous to the peaceful progress of our international relations and nothing could be more foreign to the high ideals with which our relations with other countries have in the past been conducted. I suggest to the Government that this is a constitutional point of great importance which no doubt has slipped their notice, because in this matter they have not passed from the war to the peace mind. In the days when our foreign policy was conducted on some method of principle, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs controlled the foreign policy and not the Prime Minister, and I suggest to the Government that the sooner the centre of gravity and the control of our foreign policy can be removed to its rightful position the better will it be for our international relations and for the peace of the world.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Before making any statement of the views I hold in connection
with condition of affairs in Europe I should like to reply to the admonition addressed to this side of the House by the hon. and gallant Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot). He suggested with regard to the conditions in Austria that the members of the Labour party, particularly those who had anything to do with the coal industry, would be very well advised if they refrained from any suggestion to the men whom they control to come out on strike. I should like to suggest to the hon. Member and to others who may think in the same manner as to the grave responsibility that rests upon the shoulders of the miners or of the men who call a strike or who ballot in favour of a strike that they in this House and outside should also remember the grave responsibility that rests with them in seeing that the miners of this country as well as the other workers shall have justice done to them. In regard to the Prime Minister's statement that there was no need for a revision of the Treaty we have heard sufficient even from his own followers to-night to show that, while they may not agree with those who sit on these Benches, the Treaty must be revised in certain matters. It is particularly with regard to the conditions in Germany and Austria that we wish this Treaty to be revised.
The conditions of starvation in Austria and the economic conditions in Germany have been pointed out. In Germany it is not the people who caused the War, not the people who are responsible for making the treaties with Austria and hounding her into the War who are being punished, ill-treated, and are suffering now. The people who are suffering are the people of Germany, who had no say in going to war, who, living in a conscript country, had to enter the Army and go to war. It is they who are being asked to pay, to produce and to labour in order to furnish the sums for reparation, while the real criminals, who, this country was told, were going to be hanged if the present Government were returned at the last election, have been allowed to escape into other countries, and there is little likelihood even of the rope being spun with which to hang these criminals. In Germany you have had, only within the last few days, events which have arisen out of the conditions of peace. You have already taken from Germany, judging by
the shipping, locomotives, railway trucks, coal and other things, to make reparation to other countries, close upon £2,000,000,000, according to a statement by one of the German officials.
When Germany entered the War she was a great world power. It has been said by one of the supporters of the Government that Germany is no longer that. You have taken away Alsace and Lorraine, from which she received close upon 75 per cent. of her coal. You have taken away other parts of her territory. You have stripped Germany, and, having taken the most fruitful parts of old Germany, you are asking the new Germany, the dismembered Germany, to bear the full costs of the War and of reparation, while you have taken away those parts of her territory whose wealth would have enabled her to do so, and as a result of leaving Germany in a state of economic bankruptcy you have the people becoming restless and opposing the Government. You have the reactionaries, taking advantage of the unrest in the country, affecting the coup d'état which overthrew the Government, and you had Kapp installed as dictator for a few days. All this is due to the fact that the peace conditions imposed on Germany have been of such a character as to compel the people of Germany to work in such a manner that they look upon themselves as the bond slaves of the Allies. Unless the Peace Treaty is revised, or if there is no revision, unless the Governments of the Allies do something to re-establish Germany as one of the world powers in the way of production, unless they are prepared to take Germany into the League of Nations, prepared in short to look upon Germany as one of the cooperative nations of Europe, welcoming production from her people, and sending to her the productions from our people, Germany is going down into deeper and greater ruin than she is in to-day, and more, she will bring this country and the Allies with her to economic disaster and ruin.
In the interests of our own country, if, for no humanitarian motives, but purely from the point of view of self-interest, those who are interested in capital and in labour, in the government of this country and in foreign politics ought to insist on having either the treaty revised or the conditions lightened to such an
extent as will enable Germany to recover herself as a wealth-producing power, when we can get from her all that is necessary for the rebuilding of Prance, Belgium, and the other territories that have been devastated. There is no use in asking from an impoverished people at the time of their impoverishment money to pay for a debt or for the destruction that was done by their troops. Let Germany rehabilitate herself and get back into good circumstances whereby her people may be able from the wealth they can produce to give you the things necessary to put back the other countries into their old state. The Prime Minister has said that there is no need for revision of the Peace Treaty. He differs entirely from what has been said by one of the signatories to the Peace Treaty. General Smuts, immediately after he had signed the Peace Treaty, told us that there were
territorial settlements that required revision, guarantees laid down which we hope will soon be found out of harmony with the new peaceful temper of our former enemies, measures foreshadowed over most of which in calmer mood people would be prepared to pass the sponge of oblivion, indemnities which cannot be exacted without grave peril to the industrial revival of Europe and which it will be in the interests of all to render more tolerable and moderate.
General Smuts signed the Peace Treaty, not because he believed that it could be enforced, but because he believed that it was the ending of the War, and that as calmness and tolerance became more general throughout the world, and we were further and further away from the period of hate which had existed between the nations during the War, those more tolerant moods would prevail, generous instincts would rise, and the sponge of oblivion would wipe out some of these things which would keep down Germany and prevent her taking her place among the nations. Another very prominent gentleman in this country who cannot be considered a pro-German, Dr. Charles Sarolea, Belgian Consul at Edinburgh, says:
As a Belgian by birth whose household goods have been destroyed, and who has been financially ruined by the Germans, I cannot be accused of any tender feelings for the enemy.
Then he goes on:
Unfortunately in the Peace settlement, it is not the guilty who are suffering but the innocent. It is mainly the innocent who are chastised. We are not punishing the past or the present generation, but the
untold millions of young; lads, children, who have been reduced by the Peace settlement to industrial helotry who will become hewers of wood and drawers of water to the conquering nations.
If we wish to rehabilitate ourselves and get back into the peaceful industrial conditions of the pre-war period we must reconsider the whole question of peace and the whole question of bringing into the League of Nations Germany, Austria and Hungary, and not maintaining the League of Nations combination to keep them out so long as even one constituent member of the League of Nations objects to their coming in. As I understand, that is the constitution of the League of Nations at the present time.
There is another question in reference to a little State which was not pro-German, which had no occasion at the time she did to draw the sword arid join the Allies. That nation to-day is completely wiped out as a separate nation—I refer to Montenegro, Montenegro had no occasion to come into the War when she did. Her King and her people came in gladly. They lost their country at one period to the enemy. When the Peace was being settled as a result of this War, which was fought in the interests of self-determination, this country was excluded even from the Peace Conference and wiped out as one of the nations in Europe, her King was dethroned and her heroic people placed under the rule of a foreign power—the Serbians. Over and over again when questions have been asked, the Government have refused to produce the report of Count de Salis, who was sent out on behalf of the Government to find out the state of mind of the people of Montenegro, so that the Government would have evidence on which to arrive at a conclusion which would be just to the people of Montenegro. When we put questions in this House in reference to that report we are told that it is confidential and cannot be published. Is it a confidential report upon the conditions of Montenegro which makes the British nation commit a breach of faith, and destroy a pledge through the action of their leaders and representatives in the Peace Conference so that Montenegro ceases to be a nation and becomes merely a province of one of the nations which she went into the War to help out of their difficulties? That is a matter to which some reference should be made.
8.0 P.M.
There are other matters with regard to the question of peace with Russia. There again you are continuing your system of refusing to accept the terms of peace that they have put forward. Members of the Government come to this House and appeal to the people to practise economy and work harder, and yet there is a Power which is willing to exchange commodities with you, willing to take from the productive capacity of our people the locomotives, railway rolling-stock, and engineering material which she requires in order to restore that great country, while, on the other hand, you have Russia, with its great resources, willing to send us oil, grain, timber, gold, and send us from one of the wealthiest countries in the world the goods which we require to bring us back to that state of production which we occupied before the War. These facts, I submit, show the necessity of the Government at least going into this matter. Let the Government be strong There is no question that in the matter of Montenegro there is not a man or a woman throughout the country who would not protest, and who will not protest, if the facts become known. There is no man or woman who, if it were pointed out that the material prosperity of Germany is bound up with the material prosperity of the other nations, would not be willing to assist Germany to recover the position she occupied as a producing nation so that we and the whole of the world may get back into that state which is the only alternative to ruin. Those are among the reasons why we on this side of the House demand that the Peace Treaty should be revised.

Colonel YATE: I would like to say a few words on one or two of the matters mentioned by the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), and particularly on his references to Constantinople and Mesopotamia. I was very pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman express agreement with the policy of the Government that the Sultan of Turkey should remain in Constantinople. I have lived a great deal amongst Mohammedans, both the Mussulmans of India and the Mohammedans of Afghanistan. I have known those from Khiva, Bokhara and throughout Central Asia. The whole of those Mohammedans throughout Asia, and Central Asia in particular, look upon it as an essential tenet of their religion that their Sultan
and Caliph should be an independent monarch. If there was any intention to disturb the Caliph's power at Constantinople it would cause the greatest unrest in that part of the world. I therefore urge most strongly on the Government that not only should the Sultan and Caliph be allowed to remain at Constantinople, but that there should be no mandate to any European Power over the Sultan and over what will remain of the Sultan's dominion after Syria and Mesopotamia and Armenia have been cut off. The right hon. Member for Paisley talked of "Vaticanising the Sultan." I was very pleased to hear the Prime Minister dispose of that argument at once by showing that there was no comparison possible between the Mohammedan Khalif at Constantinople and the Catholic Pontiff at Rome. The status of the two is entirely different. I trust we have heard the last of the phrase, "Vaticanising the Sultan."
I am speaking on behalf of the Mohammedans in India—not on behalf of those men in India who at present are raising a great agitation, men who have been, and are, in league with Enver Pasha, Mustapha Kemal, and other Young Turk leaders who have brought so much ruin on Turkey. The British power has been friends with Turkey ever since the Crimean War. I am old enough to remember the tales of the Crimea. We know how we fought for the Turks, and the feeling of respect for England which was thus aroused remained in Turkey for many years. I can remember the time of the Russo - Turkish War, when British medical officers who had been out to help the Turks, on coming back referred to the Turks as having asked, "When are you British coming to help us? You British officers always lead us, our Turkish officers drive us." We must not judge Turkey to-day by the Young Turks; those are the men to whom we are opposed. We are friends, and I hope always will be friends, with the original Turk. Of all the men and of all the officers who fought during the War I have not heard one who was in Mesopotamia say a single word against the clean fighting or the bravery of the Turks. On the contrary, they have nothing but praise for the Turks' valour. Both Turks and British in Mesopotamia joined in disliking the thieving, low-class Arabs who murdered the wounded and plundered
the dead. It is of the greatest importance that the Mohammedans of India, of Afghanistan, and of Asia should know that there is that respect remaining with us for the Turks, and that we intend to help the Sultan to maintain his power if we can, and to overcome the opposition to him and to the Turkish power in Constantinople on the part of the Young Turks. Enver Pasha and others of the Young Turk party are not Mohammedans at all, but Atheists. There will be, I can see, a great division in time to come between the various Mohammedan races in the world. I never could understand at the time why the Mohammedans in India looked with such distrust on the King of the Hedjaz when he declared himself an independent king. I see it now. I see there is a spirit among the Hedjaz Arabs, now that they have sole possession of Mecca and Medina, which prompts them to hope that they will be able to force the Sultan of Turkey to give up his position as Caliph and that they will succeed to it. That will cause great division among Mohammedan people in time to come. We shall have to be prepared for that. The Indian Moham medans, the Afghans and others would never agree to that, for they look upon the Sultan as their Caliph. It is incumbent on us not to do anything which would interfere in any way with the choice of the Caliph and we must do nothing to lesson his power and prestige.
On the subject of Mesopotamia I was sorry to hear the right hon. Member for Paisley say it was proposed that we should limit our connection with Mesopotamia to the Basrah district. It consists mostly of swamp and marshland. If we are to do anything in Mesopotamia it is absolutely necessary for us to control the head waters of the irrigation system, and that control goes very nearly up to Mosul. All these schemes of Sir William Willcocks for the irrigation of Mesopotamia are dependent on the control of those head waters. If we are to develop the country and make it something like it was in the days of the ancient empires we must control all the head waters, and for that purpose we must go practically to Mosul. I hope there will be no talk of giving up either Baghdad or Mosul, and that the country will be developed in every possible way. We talk of Arab government, but I know perfectly well that in present conditions in Mesopotamia there is no Arab chief
who would accept the suzerainty of any member of the Shereefian family. They will not admit of any stranger coming into Mesopotamia any more than the Mesopotamian tribes will admit the possibility of any one tribe ruling over the other tribes. Therefore, for the present, whatever we may be able to do in the future, we must control the government of Mesopotamia. Let there be an Arab Assembly or Council, by all means, but, so far as I know, they have asked that the late Governor, Sir Percy Cox, who is now Minister at Teheran, should be appointed as Governor. As to giving up Bagdad, how could we possibly do so, when we consider our relations with Persia? There was no country so helpless during the War as Persia and there was no country which behaved with such arrogance and self-conceit, and which put forward such extraordinary claims before the Peace Conference after the War. It was invaded by Russians and Turks, and could not do a stroke to defend itself. I can remember, long before the War, giving to Lord Grey, then Minister for Foreign Affairs, a scheme for a Persian Gendarmerie, and I wish that scheme had been carried out, because we might then have had a stable force there to keep order when the War broke out. There is a British Mission there at present, and we must remember that we are very responsible for Persia. In the old days there was the question of Afghanistan, but the Afghans have now turned their attention further north. It is difficult to say how far the Afghans are going to affect the situation and we do not know what will happen. We had a strong force on the north-eastern frontier of Persia, and I am sorry it has been withdrawn. Indian troops did magnificently there, and the country was held and kept quiet. The same thing happened in the Caspian Sea, where we had a Naval force. If we had maintained that force there we could have held Baku and the whole of the oil pipe line to Batoum, and drawn supplies of oil from there. At Tiflis there was the case of a British officer nineteen years of age marching a platoon between two opposing forces. He told them they were not to fight, and they went away. Things of that kind happened because our prestige was great, and if we had only remained in these parts, the people would
have kept quiet. I hope the policy of the Government will be strong on these matters. I should like to see more Indian troops on the Persian side and a naval force in the Caspian Sea. We require to hold Bagdad in order to maintain the new railway line from Bagdad to Teheran. I trust any suggestion of withdrawing from our control in Mesopotamia will be put aside.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Harms-worth): I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not think me discourteous if I do not follow him along the lines of his argument in respect of the questions of the Caliphate and Mesopotamia. Those subjects have been treated at considerable length by the Prime Minister, and I could not add anything useful to what he has said if I were to try to do so, I trust that the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) also will not think me discourteous if I do not go at any length into the question of the economic situation in Central Europe. I should like to say this, however, that there was one passage more than another in the Prime Minister's speech which struck in my mind a very sympathetic chord, and it was that in which he adverted to the attitude of mind of so many speakers and writers on this subject, as if it were after all the Allies who were responsible for the collapse of Central Europe and not the late Empires themselves. I think that that is, if I may venture to say so, an unfortunate attitude of mind, and I am quite certain that it is not in the least a helpful one. Speaking for myself, there can be nobody who more ardently desires the economic revival, not only of Germany and Austria, but of Russia also, because nothing could be more plain than that we cannot expect health in the outlying States of Europe if the great centre is sunk in poverty and indigence, as these countries are. We cannot expect the full prosperity of Europe until something like decent economic conditions have been reestablished in the late Austrian Empire, in Germany, and in Russia. I was surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman refer to Montenegro as if it had been wiped off the list of nations. I am not in a position at the present moment to discuss the question, because it is precisely one of those questions that is now before the Peace Conference.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Montenegro, at any rate, should be allowed to have a delegate at the Peace Conference.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have no doubt the hon. Member is well aware of the complications of Montenegrin politics. I think he may be perfectly certain that Montenegro will receive the fairest possible treatment at the Peace Conference, and I have no doubt that the conclusion arrived at—I do not know what it is to be—will be a conclusion that will commend itself to the main part of the Montenegrin people themselves. I will not refer to the old and vexed question of the De Salis report, but I can assure hon. Members opposite that the withholding of that report is not due in any sense to a magpie disposition on the part of a Government office to secrete and pigeonhole and keep away from Members of Parliament a document they ought to see. I feel confident that if my hon. Friend, the Member for Govan, or any other hon. Member of this House read this De Salis report, or if it were published broadcast, everyone would say it was a very foolish Government that allowed it to be published as an official document. It is much too frank in its expressions for that purpose and was not intended to be published.
The only other question which seems to call for a moment's consideration is that of the situation in Vienna. I confess I was very much astonished to hear the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Colonel Lambert Ward), describing Vienna as if it were a Paris before the War, a ville lumière, and as a centre of nothing but profligacy and vice, luxury and extravagance. I think it must be put on record that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, in describing Vienna as a seat of wanton luxury, although he admitted that there was a certain amount of acute, actual want, has given an account which is at complete variance with every official and unofficial report I have seen in regard to this matter. I wonder has he read the quite masterly report which has been issued as a White Paper, the report of Sir William Goode. I wonder has he read that able report "Economic Conditions in Central Europe, No. 2." I venture to think that if any hon. Member reads those reports, or indeed hears the stories brought back from Vienna by everybody who goes there, everybody with
the exception of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, he will agree with me that anything we can do to help Vienna is a work statesmanlike, benevolent, and well worthy our attention and the attention of all the Allied Powers, and, I would say, the neutral powers of the world as well. I should add that when our present High Commissioner went to Vienna the very first message he sent back to His Majesty's Government was an urgent appeal that something should be done by the Allies—do not let us always speak in this connection as if our Government alone were responsible—an earnest appeal that the Allies and the world at large should do something to relieve the terrible distress in German-Austria.
I should like to have dwelt, but I cannot at this hour, for some little time on what has been done by way of relief in Central Europe. I think we should never forget that, in this connection, from the time when Mr. Hoover undertook relief in Belgium and Northern France, and carried on his benevolent activities in the whole of Europe, up to the present time, there has been put forth by the Allies a gigantic effort in the direction of the relief of the devastated areas, both friendly and enemy, in Europe. I do not think that ought to be forgotten. I do not know where there is any record in history of a victorious Alliance devoting so much time, so much anxious care, so much money, and so much energy to the relief and the assistance of those against whom they were recently fighting, and from whom they had suffered wrongs indescribable. I could pursue this topic at greater length, but I see no advantage in it, and I trust that those hon. Members who have spoken since the Prime Minister addressed the House, and to whose speeches I have not referred in detail, will not attribute to me any discourtesy, but will rather sympathise with my view that we have had enough of this discussion to-day, and might now immediately proceed to the other business which is to engage the attention of the House.

Mr. JODRELL: Before the hon. Gentleman who represents the Foreign Office leaves his seat, I hope I may draw his attention to one part of the British Empire which I do not think has been dealt with to-night. I allude to the Island of Cyprus.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The Island of Cyprus is not under the Foreign Office, it is under the Colonial Office.

Mr. JODRELL: It is common know ledge that there has been a propaganda on foot for some time implying that the vast majority of the population of Cyprus is extremely anxious to come under Greek rule, and a remark from the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) shows he is of that opinion, too. I also remember certain remarks he made in which he drew a parallel between the Island of Cyprus and another island, with which, I think, he is more acquainted. It is partly on that account that I desire to draw attention to this matter. It is generally understood that the population of the Island of Cyprus is mainly a Greek population. It is perfectly true that of the 275,000 people, roughly, who live there the bulk of them speak Greek. There are about 60,000 to to 60,000 Moslems. But the point I wish to drive home is that it does not follow because a man speaks Greek he therefore is a Greek in the sense of being a Hellenic Greek. The population of the Island of Cyprus are Cypriotes of a different race. It is perfectly true that the propaganda to which I alluded, and certain documents connected with which I hold in my hand, signed by certain members of the Greek community in Cyprus, make it appear that there is a universal desire on the part of all Greeks to come under Greek rule, or whatever government may exist in Hellenic Greece, but, as a matter of fact, I have taken some trouble to find out from people on the spot. The bulk of the population are perfectly content, whether Greek-speaking or not, to remain under British rule, and not only that, but they live on very good terms with their Moslem compatriots. Take, for instance, the position of the gendarmerie of the island. I have figures here which show that out of a force of 26 officers, and 763 non-commissioned officers and men, 420 are Moslems. They work perfectly well with the Cyprian members of the force, and they are themselves the backbone of the force. It does not follow that because a Moslem is a Moslem, therefore he is a bad Moslem, nor does it follow that a Greek because he speaks Greek is a bad Greek. There are good Cypriotes and bad Cypriotes, and, taking them all in all, I am convinced that the population of the island
are thoroughly content with the present rule, which is prosperous, and this propaganda which is spread about the country should be looked upon with considerable suspicion. I ask everyone concerned, therefore, to keep an open mind upon the subject, and not be led away by parallels drawn by my hon. Friend (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) and others of his way of thinking, which no doubt will be used largely on a future occasion not far off.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am sorry I cannot respond for a few minutes to the appeal of my hon. Friend (Mr. Harmsworth). I am sure the House welcomes him back after his illness. I am not in a position to follow my hon. Friend (Mr. Jodrell) with regard to the subject of Cyprus, but I venture to say we could very soon find out which way the Cypriotes wish to go, by holding free elections. My hon. Friend opposite made an appeal to us to allow this Debate to lapse, but I think our chances of discussing all-important questions abroad are so few in this House at present, that advantage should be taken of them, and nothing is of more vital importance to the people of this country than the questions which have been discussed on a very high level, if I many be permitted to say so, by right hon. and hon. Members to-day. The discussion yesterday dealt largely with high prices, and I do submit that the questions of high prices and for gn policy are very intimately connected. I should like to touch on the reference of the Prime Minister to the League of Nations. Some of us on these Benches have pointed out that the League will not be effective until it has a League of Nations' force, and we shall have to pursue that, I am afraid, for some years before we get that view accepted. Then I hope it will be the only force in the world, and then I think we can look for a reign of peace and prosperity, but not otherwise. In this matter, I should like to refer to the remarks that have been made as to the accusation that might be made against us in the United States, that we divided up Turkey among the interested Powers without consulting the United States. I submit we have done a good deal of damage in that direction already in regard to another country—Persia. I am not going to touch on that very difficult and thorny question, but I think we must say that Persia has been
dealt with by this country alone, without any consultation with the United States. Unfortunately, that is being used against us with very ill-effect in the United States, and has done us a great deal of harm, and I cannot help thinking that is one of the many blunders this Government and its Foreign Office have committed.
With regard to what the Prime Minister said about Armenia, I know he disappointed my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool and many other friends of Armenia, including myself. We interfered with the internal affairs of Russia to the tune of £115,000,000 at least spent by ourselves, apart from what has been spent by our numerous Allies, great and small, who unsuccessfully tried to poke their fingers into the affairs of Russia. We also lost many precious lives in that connection. Apparently we have nothing left now for the Armenians, to whom we were pledged and who would have welcomed our assistance in the last troublous months, in which they have suffered so severely. The hon. and gallant Member for Melton (Colonel Yate) drew a picture of our extending our boundaries in Mesopotamia, Persia, through the Caspian Sea and on, I suppose, to Bokhara and Khiva. The only comment I would make on that is that I hope he will be in the same frame of mind when he gets his next Income Tax demand. We are not in a fit financial position to adventure into the wilds of Asia Minor and the Near East to-day. We should only be too thankful if we could get rid of any of our responsibilities, and I believe we could get rid of the hinterland of Mesopotamia to the satisfaction of our fellow-subjects in India and the peace of those districts. I think I am right in saying the demand of the Indian Moslems is a purely religious demand for the land containing the shrines and holy places which, as has been said by the right hon. Member for Paisley, are of more importance to Moslems than Constantinople. These holy places and shrines are contained in what is known as the Isle of Arabia—the rivers of Tigris and Euphrates forming, according to Moslem idea, an island of what we know as a peninsular. The Moslems hold that the Koran lays down that the Isle of Arabia must be ruled by Mohammedans. The solution here, I submit—and I do not
know any objections that have been stated by the Government against it—is to see if some arrangement can be made to make Mesopotamia a mandatory country with a Mohammedan mandate. It was said, and by the Prime Minister, that the Shereefian family would not be welcomed as rulers over the country. But I believe it would be possible for an Arabian confederation to be formed. And the mandate for Mesopotamia, or at any rate Upper Mesopotamia, might be given to the Emir Feisel.
Englishmen from Mesopotamia sometimes speak slightingly about certain elements among the native Arabs. But it must be remembered that these Arabs have been ground down for years under the misrule of the Turks.
The Arabs were once a very great people, and some of us hope to see them a great people once again. At all events, I think that aspect is worthy of examination. We could supply officers and technical instructors to the Arabs to help them in that way. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to forget the conditions under which the British troops are living in Mesopotamia. The climate is intolerable. Some of these thousands of men are spending their fourth hot season there. According to the statement of the Prime Minister, we seem to be attracted by the natural riches of Mesopotamia. We cannot afford anything to help the Armenians to whom we are pledged up to the hilt, but there are oil and natural riches in Mesopotamia, and therefore more British lives and more of hard-earned British money are to be expended in extending our sway right up to Kurdistan, or, according to some hon. Members, up to the Caspian, and indeed beyond. That way, to my mind, lies not only dishonour but bankruptcy.
There are one or two things that I have not said, and one of them is that, interesting as was the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Lanark in his reference to Hungary, it was in poor taste to repeat petty tittle-tattle about a very fine Hungarian nobleman. For there are occasionally fine noblemen even in Central Europe. In Count Karolyi we have one of the few Liberals left in Central Europe; a man who is our friend, who was our friend in the dark days of the War, and who protested against his people entering into the fight. He drew
his inspiration from Kossuth, a name which would have provoked a cheer in this House 20 or 30 years ago, before either the hon. and gallant Gentleman or myself was alive. In that reference the hon. and gallant Gentleman spoilt a speech which otherwise I should feel inclined to put on a high level.

Captain ELLIOT: I was only explaining why the Hungarian people are anxious for one who would have a sense of responsibility against a person whom they had not seen exercising a sense of responsibility.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman was led away from what he intended to be his meaning. Count Karolyi did form a Liberal Government with a strong Socialist element after the Armistice. If Hungary had been properly treated then we would not have had 15 months of chaos, fighting, and anarchy in Hungary. We allowed Hungarian territory to be occupied by the bitterest enemies of the country. We allowed speeches to be made by loading statesmen in these then enemy countries at Agham, Prague, Belgrade, and other places in which it was stated that purely Hungarian territory was to be alienated. No wonder the Government of Count Karolyi fell; we have had chaos ever since. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Lanark treats lightly the complaints that have been made, I am glad to say, on these Benches, about treatment of the political opponents of the present Government of Hungary. I do not think that the stories that we hear are altogether false. In fact, the Government have admitted that there have been excesses. It is, I believe, an admitted fact even by the Hungarians themselves—for they boast about it—that the present Magyar reactionaries were brought back; because the Kapp revolution has been successful in Hungary under the command of the Ludendorff of Hungary—Admiral Honthay.

Captain ELLIOT: There has been a general election in Hungary.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: That general election has been a farce The leaders of the Opposition parties were imprisoned.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): I must remind hon. Members that
there are limits to the responsibilities of the British Government. We are only able to discuss events with which the British Government is concerned.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: My submission is that we are to a certain extent responsible. There were Allied representatives during the Bela Kun régime—when, of course, atrocities were committed—and they protested successfully against the excesses then committed, especially the Italian representative. We have a representative, Sir George Clerk, in Budapest. The historian who twenty years hence looks at these events with unjaundiced eye will agree as to the strangeness of the scene. If we can bring any pressure to bear upon the equal, if not the worse, atrocities now taking place in Hungary, we ought to do so, for we have a real responsibility. I think, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I am entitled to show how that is. After the fall of the Bela Kun Government the Allied representatives at Budapest met under the chairmanship of the British General Gorton, and proposed for election, as King of Hungary, the Archduke Joseph of Hapsburg, this without any election at all such as has been quoted against me by the hon. and gallant Member for Lanark. If there was any responsibility for the War to be fixed upon any Royal house in Europe, then it should be fixed on the Hapsburg Dynasty, whose guilt was of the deepest dye. The British representative took the chair at the meeting of the Allied representatives, and proposed for election as King the Archduke Joseph. Fortunately, the American Government protested. This Government is a creature of our creation.
We have a responsibility, and what is being done now in Hungary is not to our credit. There were 5,000 men suspected of being Socialists who had supported the previous régime, and they were killed in prison. There are now 200 members of the previous Government of Bela Kun on their trial. When that Government was formed Hungary was in the depths of despair, and many men of high character, and no particular politics, helped the Hungarian Government, including one or two very famous scientists whose names are well known to the hon. Member. A very famous doctor became Minister of Health, and every member of the previous Bela Kun Government who did try and help their country in time of
stress is on his trial, first of all for murder, because the previous Government executed rebels and because people were killed in the street fighting. About 200 people were killed during the Bela Kun regime, and they are being tried for murder because of the executions which, it is alleged, were not judged by a legal court. They are being accused of forgery because the Bela Kun Government created paper money, and other charges are being brought forward against them.
These men are going to be tried for their lives. Many of them were Ministers of Education and Public Health, and they had no possible responsibility for the murders and atrocities that took place, and unless something is done they are all going to be hanged. We have some responsibility for this Government. We tried to stop atrocities in Russia in the wrong way and we do not seem to be trying to stop atrocities in Hungary when we can do it in the right way. We have representatives in Hungary, and we are still in a state of war with that country, but she lies at our absolute mercy. These men are being executed after trials which are most illegal, and if any injustice is done the responsibility lies very much at our door. I think some very bitter pogroms have been committed against the Jews, and something should be done to put a stop to them. We have a real responsibility to the present Government in Hungary, because that Government is being encouraged by certain elements in the Allied countries to again mobilise a large army. They have been promised munitions, and they are going to be encouraged to attack Russia. This sounds almost an incredible story, but it has received a great deal of credence in European capitals. The British representatives of the War Office in Hungary are freely mentioned as being behind all this.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Where has the hon. and gallant Member read this extraordinary rumour, because it has failed hitherto to reach me?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I will tell the hon. Member where I have read it. I have read it in a paper called "The New Europe," which is contributed to by some very distinguished writers. It is a paper noted for its moderation and
general accuracy. I am sorry I have spoken about a paper on the Floor of this House, but this is a matter of very great importance, and, as I was challenged by the hon. Gentleman, I am glad to tell him where I read this. I cannot admit that we are without responsibility for this state of things. We deliberately stirred up this trouble in Hungary out of class hatred and nothing else.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Does the hon. and gallant Member say we did it? Does he say the British Government did this, or the British people, or the Allies, because, if so, there is no foundation for it?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: We did not give the Government of Karolyi a chance at all. The Socialist Government of Bela Kun, if it had been given a chance, might have settled down into a steady Government, but every effort was made by us by blockade and encouraging surrounding countries to attack, and this produced an unsatisfactory state of affairs. Now the Bela Kun Government is overthrown and another Government has been set up, and we are doing very little to restrict the monarchist policy, which, after all, means militarist reaction, Chauvinism, militarism, and trying to get back the territories which have been rightly taken away from Magyar dominion. All this is arousing the greatest alarm and uneasiness in the surrounding countries of Jugo-Slavia and Czecho-Slovakia. It is all very well to say that the Hungarians have a right to choose their own Government, but we are responsible for that Government, and if they lead the Magyars to fresh conquest, and if the country is allowed to go back into a state of seething unrest, then we have a real responsibility. I said that there had been a class hatred actuating our foreign policy, and that statement I repeat because it is true and there has been. We did not give the Karolyi Government a chance. The German Government in Berlin was too far to the left for certain elements in this country and it was not given a fair chance, and the result is that this awful chaos is continuing in Europe, trade is not starting, and we are feeling the effects of all this in this country in consequent high prices.
9.0 P.M.
History will deal hardly with the Government of this country, and, I am afraid, with the Governments of some of
our Allies. It is no use the Prime Minister, or anyone else, saying that the responsibility is not ours, but is with the Allies. The fact remains that this House is responsible, if we allow ourselves to be put off by that sort of plea, although it may be put forward in all honesty. I say the house will be responsible. I have thought it right to make this protest. May I repeat the appeal made by the hon. and gallant Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot) and by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) to Members on the Labour benches, with reference to the threat of a coal strike? Do not let us have any provocative language. This is the one country in Europe which to-day is more or less stable, and there is a tremendous responsibility upon us. It takes two to make a quarrel. There must be two sides to bring about a strike, and ebullition of feeling in this House is not calculated to make for a peaceful solution of existing difficulties. I hope that the matter will be looked into calmly, and that our tremendous responsibilities will not b lost sight of.

Orders of the Day — RIOT, DUBLIN.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I had not intended dealing with more than one subject to-night, but, as the last hon. Member has mentioned the case of Cyprus, I feel tempted to say a few words upon that question. I have taken great interest in Cyprus for many years, and have been approached by many people—officials and others—to help them in their claim to be restored to their motherland—Greece. If in any way a country could manifest its opinion, I think Cyprus has manifested its opinion in favour of being joined up to Greece. My hon. and gallant Friend has thrown out a fair challenge, namely, that if the Government have any doubt on the point, the people of Cyprus should have the opportunity, by means of a plebiscite, to state their feelings on this question. They recollect the fact that during the War Cyprus was offered to Greece when under the rule of a king, who was not our friend, and that offer was refused. But when peace comes to be finally settled, they hold that this Government should take an opportunity of acquainting themselves with the views of the people of Cyprus, and they believe it will be found that those views will be in favour of Cyprus being handed back to
Greece. I am the happy possessor of a vote of thanks passed at a public meeting in Cyprus, the Patriarch being at the head of it, as a recognition of my efforts, and I think that is some testimony in favour of my view that the people of Cyprus want to be returned to Greece.
I must also say a word about the Armenians. I have been a member of several Armenian committees, and I well remember the two agitations led by Mr. Gladstone in favour of the Armenians. I confess I heard with some misgivings to-day the language of the Prime Minister with regard to Armenia, and especially with regard to Cilicia. I understand from the Armenians themselves that they regard the control of Cilicia by one of the European Powers as being, from their point of view, more essential even than the occupation of Constantinople. When the Prime Minister was speaking about the responsibilities of this country in regard to many other countries I ventured to make the suggestion that we also had a responsibility for saving the Armenians from massacres. It is quite true that the Mussulman majority there is now a still greater majority, but that is due to the fact that so many tens of thousands of Armenians in the Province of Cilicia have been butchered. One cannot see how a people should be willing to regard a butchery, which makes a minority still more a minority, as a justification for a continuance of the rule of the people responsible for the butchery. By the substitution of the Treaty of Berlin for the Treaty of San Stephano the Armenians were returned to Turkish rule. Many Englishmen, and notably Mr. Gladstone, declared at the time that this meant the exposure of the Armenians to butchery, and events have proved that. The responsibility for that foolish and nefarious policy in the later days of the last century rests with this country.
It has been suggested that I was bound to draw an analogy between Cyprus and Ireland. I am prepared to admit the claim that when I start on Cyprus I may undoubtedly land in Ireland. The Chief Secretary informed me earlier in the evening that, owing to circumstances over which he had no control, he could not be present, but would be represented by the learned Attorney-General. I am sure he could not have a more efficient representative. I do not intend to take up much of
the time of the House with this matter, especially as my remarks must be limited by the fact that events in Dublin, to which I am going to make some reference, are under consideration by a Committee which has been adjourned, and will also be considered at a promised military inquiry. Therefore I am not going to pronounce anything like a final judgment upon the painful events that took place in that city. I gather from the papers that there has been another unfortunate man killed in Dublin since the events of last Monday night, but whether it was a civilian or a soldier I do not know.
The points that I wish to put before the Attorney-General I put before him for the purpose of getting an assurance from him that by both forms of inquiry, namely, at the inquest, where I under-stand that the Government are represented by counsel, and at the military inquiry, full elucidation will be sought of the incidents of this most unfortunate transaction. It is known that two civilians, a man and a woman, were killed. It is the subject of many conflicting rumours as to how the disturbance, which led to that most tragic event, arose. I find, however, that all the papers agree that the incidents began in the visit of a certain body of young soldiers to a theatre in Dublin. It was quite natural that the soldiers, especially as they were celebrating an important anniversary in their history, should get permission to go to the theatre. Some reports—I pronounce no opinion upon these things; I throw them out as legitimate subjects for inquiry—say that the young soldiers, who I dare say were English boys not acquainted with Irish feelings, and quite unconscious of the somewhat inflammable and susceptible environment in which they were, demonstrated their feelings of approval and disapproval at some of the show which was presented to them They cheered lustily some of the representations, I suppose on the cinema, of military raids in Dublin, including one on the house of Mr. Findlater, a gentleman of Scottish extraction, who might be taken as a model of a citizen of Dublin, and, on the other hand, when events, such as the rearing of a monument to the late Archbishop Croke, were represented, they signified their disapproval by loud hisses.
If there were a large audience at the theatre and that audience consisted exclusively of Irishmen, some of them of strong Nationalist opinions, that was somewhat provocative, and I cannot help thinking that it would have been wise if these young soldiers had been accompanied by some senior non-commissioned officers or police who would have represented to them that in the present state of feeling in Ireland it was wiser to abstain from such demonstrations. According to the account that I read, when the soldiers left the Theatre Royal they began to sing, and, very naturally, they sang distinctly English songs, such as "Rule Britannia" and "God Save the King" [HON. MEMBERS: "British songs!"] They sang British songs such as "God Save the King," "Rule Britannia," and shouted "Up with England" and "Down with Sinn Fein." No man can be surprised that young English soldiers should sing these songs and should utter these cries in the proper places and in the proper surroundings. As a matter of fact, an Irishman could not sing some songs that are as much Irish as those songs are British without running grave danger of being sent to Britain.

Commander BELLAIRS: They sang them at the Albert Hall.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Yes, I know, but it is much safer to sing them at the Albert Hall than at the Theatre Royal in Dublin. One man, for singing a song which is famous at the festive gatherings of my hon. Friends from the North of Ireland, got six or twelve months imprisonment. The "Wearing of the Green" is also a somewhat dangerous song to sing in Ireland at the present time. I put it to the House that, if it be a matter of imprisonment to sing an Irish National song, then there may be ground for resentment that a body of Englishmen should be perfectly free to sing in the public streets of Dublin a song which to an Irish nationalist is the most antagonistic form of singing manifestation that is known. A crowd gathered around, but I do not know that there was anything more serious than perhaps some shouting and a little pushing. I see from one paper, that the crowd were somewhat divided in opinion. Some not only applauded the songs of the soldiers, but actually joined in the singing. When the soldiers had gone a certain
distance, the crowd appears to have become more threatening, or the soldiers may have become frightened. They began to strike some of the crowd pressing upon them. Subsequently, the soldiers got to Portobello Bridge, which is not far from their barracks. It is alleged by the military, and this is one of the incidents as to which I am not in a position at present to speak with authority, that shots were fired from the crowd and that one of the soldiers was wounded. That statement may be true or it may be false—I cannot say—but some two or three soldiers were sent to the barracks, and there came out a body of men to the aid of these soldiers who were considered to be in danger. From all the reports that I have read I must say that I do not see that there was much sign of danger, but there may have been. Then some officer came out, and he declared that he would fire on the people, and he did fire, and a man and a woman were killed. I have read the accounts about this man and this woman. If one of the hon. Members for Belfast had been killed in that affray, he would not have been more innocent of any share in the whole business than this poor man and woman. The woman, as I have seen in one of the stories, was actually coming from a chapel where she had been saying her prayers, and the man was a poor working man who had taken no part in the matter. Several shots were fired, and there is an account in the papers of the hurry and scurry of the people, who had only come up to this scene on their way home, and had to take refuge in doorways. There was a rain of bullets. A woman and her husband were accosted and threatened by the soldiers, the woman fainted, and there was a scene of panic, and it really looked as though it was impossible for even the most peaceful citizen of Dublin to pass through the streets without danger to his life.
That is a very serious state of affairs. I do not make a general charge against British soldiers in Ireland. As a matter of fact, I regard these incidents as an essential part, and an inevitable and logical consequence, of the unfortunate and disastrous régime which exists in Ireland to-day, I was told only the other day, by a friend who has returned from Germany, that the British soldiers in Cologne and other occupied cities of Germany were quite popular with the
German people, because of their kindness and courtesy to the inhabitants. But here in Dublin it is different. There are all the forms of military government, and there is that atmosphere of popular dislike which militarist government must incite against soldiers brought from another and more powerful country, and representing, as I said the other day, the keeping down by force of the national aspirations of Ireland. The soldiers, however good-natured they may be, however kindly they may be, when brought into an atmosphere like that, are subject to the provocation and temptation to violence, and I say that that is as unfair to them as it is to the unfortunate people among whom they are cast. I see by one of the papers that a priest had to go round and give the last rites of their religion to 8 or 10 people who had been wounded in this transaction. I put it to the House, is not that a manifestation of a state of things in Ireland which must bring a feeling of horror to every man in this House, and to every Englishman, in whatever part of the world he may be? What I hope to obtain from the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a statement that all those incidents shall be subjected to the most severe examination; that it shall be demonstrated that the officer who ordered this shooting into a large crowd of people was justified by the law in doing so; and that, in regard to the death of these two innocent people, the story of whose discovery by their bereaved relatives is to me most touching, it shall be proved that the officer was acting within his legal rights. What we want is an investigation which will prove to the world that it is thorough and impartial, and that, if guilt there be, the man responsible for the guilt shall be made responsible before the world.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Dents Henry): I am sure that the Irish Government and the House ate deeply indebted to the hon. Member for Liverpool for the studied moderation with which he has put this case. I am sure that he is desirous, as we are all desirous, of using no words in this House which will in any way embitter the unfortunate state of affairs that exists on the other side of the Channel. As I gather from him, his main object in bringing this matter before the House is to get from us an assurance that there will be a
full and searching inquiry into the matters to which he has referred. I can give him that assurance. An inquest is being held in Dublin relative to the deaths of the two unfortunate individuals, with whose relatives we all sympathise, and in the course of that investigation a great many facts will be elicited. Quite apart from that, however, the occurrence will be investigated fully by the military authorities, and the facts will all be before the public. I may mention, as illustrating the difficulty and trouble that exists in the case of soldiers in the present condition of affairs in the city of Dublin, that, on the following day, that is to say yesterday, in broad daylight, a soldier in plain clothes—not in uniform—was shot dead by three men in the very centre of Dublin; and it will be within the recollection of the hon. Gentleman and other Members of the House that it is not so very long since there was a somewhat similar outbreak in Dublin in relation to the Army. When he refers, as he did, to the use of weapons by the body of men who had gone to the Theatre Royal, I wish to impress upon the House that the 150 men who went to the Theatre Royal were absolutely unarmed. They had no arms of any kind. On their way back to the barracks they were assailed by a crowd. Hon. Members know very well that the unfortunate part of a not in a public street or square is that it nearly always involves, when force is used to suppress it or to disperse the rioters, an innocent victim, and this particular instance was no exception to that rule. It is obvious that the unarmed soldiers, returning to their barracks, were attacked by persons who by no stretch of imagination could be called innocent. One of the soldiers was shot in the chest, and three or four others were wounded, and it was only in the last resort, when there was a difficulty in the soldiers getting back to their barracks, that a telephone message was sent, I think, from a hospital known as the Portobello Hospital, near the Barracks, and a picket came out on to Portobello Bridge for the purpose of relieving the position. The officer in command, who has taken the responsibility for his orders, as he is bound to do, ordered a number of shots to be fired, and those shots, unfortunately, took effect. My hon. and gallant Friend the
Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) asked a question yesterday, but my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary had no information on the subject, as to whether there was any use of machine-guns at any period during that evening. We have had inquiries made of the Major-General Commanding in Dublin, and he assures us that at no period of the proceedings, or at any other time during that evening, was a machine-gun used. The whole incident resolves itself into this attack upon unarmed soldiers returning from the theatre. No doubt they sang "God Save the King" and "Rule Britannia." I think they might have sung it with greater safety in Cologne. I can assure my hon. Friend that the lamentable result will be most fully investigated by the authorities, and, if it should turn out that there is any blame attaching to any persons connected with the military or with any other branch of the administration, the facts will be put before the proper authority in order that those who are to blame may be dealt with.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether it is true, as stated in some of the papers, that Mr. O'Brien is at present in an extremely dangerous state of health, and could not the Government see their way immediately to order his release?

Mr. HENRY: Mr. O'Brien is ill as the result of hunger strike. A number of prisoners in Wormwood Scrubs went on hunger strike. They have all given it up with one exception. Mr. O'Brien refuses to be removed to hospital and refuses to take food, and he has been warned as to the consequences which may ensue, and his friends have been informed.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

There being Private Business set down for consideration at a Quarter-past Eight o'clock, by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. S. The House proceeded to the consideration of such business, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 9th March.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

LONDON ELECTRIC RAILWAY COMPANIES (FARES, etc.) BILL.

[By Order.]

Order for Second Beading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: I rise to a point of Order. I submit that according to the rules, practices and principles of modern legislation, this Bill is out of order, and ought not to be given a Second Reading. The grounds upon which I base the point of Order are threefold. The first is that it is an immemorial practice and principle of Parliamentary legislation, when granting a monopoly franchise, to safeguard the public interest in that grant by strictly limiting the grant to a statutory company, and if a statutory company attempts to surrender or abrogate the powers which have been entrusted to it by Parliament it has committed such a contempt of Parliament that until the contempt is purged it cannot be heard in this House with regard to any alteration in the terms of its franchise. It is within your knowledge, Sir, and within the knowledge of this House, by reason of evidence which has been given on London traffic before a Committee of the House, that without exception the statutory companies mentioned in this Bill have entirely surrendered every vestige of power with which they were clothed when created by Parliament to a purely non-statutory body known as the Underground Electric Railways Company of London, Limited, and I submit that the practice and principles of Parliamentary legislation have definitely given effect to the old maxim, delegata potestas non potest-delegari—no delegated power can be delegated—and that there has been a gross contempt committed on Parliament by the people who are promoting this Bill, inasmuch as they are a statutory company, and they have abandoned their duties imposed by Parliament and their obligations to Parliament to a purely non-statutory body.
The second ground which, I submit, places the promoters of the Bill out of Order, is that in 1915 they came to this House and promoted a Bill which, like
all Bills which become Acts of Parliament, is in the nature of a formal and sacred grant as between Parliament and the promoters, and by that Bill the whole of the statutory companies mentioned in this Bill asked Parliament, for certain purposes, to be allowed to depart from their pre-existing statutory obligation to enter into a pooling arrangement with another company, one of the same group, but non-statutory, the London General Omnibus-Company, and the purposes for which they asked the sanction of Parliament were these, to enable them to pay the wages and meet the increased costs caused by the War, and to improve the travelling facilities. That is to say, that from Parliament, on behalf of the public, they were getting the right to pool their part of the bargain. Their part of the bargain was that they should discharge three definite obligations—one, to pay the wages which had been increased owing to War conditions; two, to meet the increased charges owing to war conditions; and three, to give improved facilities. The preamble to the Bill discloses quite clearly that none of these duties which constituted their part of the bargain has been performed, and they are now seeking to get a new franchise without having kept faith with Parliament as laid down in the terms of their Act of 1915.
The third ground on which I submit they are out of Order is this: They are seeking by private Bill legislation to annul, abrogate and repeal certain Clauses of Public Acts of Parliament. In Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice it is laid down:
It has been questioned whether Public Acts may properly be repealed or amended by a Private Bill, and the inconvenience of their repeal or amendment by an Act which, being passed as a Private Bill and being of a local character, is not printed among the Public General Acts, has sometimes been urged as a reason for refusing to sanction this course. No rule, however, has been established which precludes the promoters of a Private Bill from seeking the repeal or the amendment of Public Acts…… Provisions of this kind in Private Bills demand peculiar vigilance lest public law" be lightly set aside for the benefit of particular persons or places.
One test which you, Sir, in your lofty position could apply to a measure of this sort is, if this House moved as an instruction to a Committee on a Private Bill, that they should impose upon the promoters of the Bill conditions connected with large matters of public policy, and I would ask
you to refer to pages 653 and 654 for the kind of case which I have indicated. I will take the case mentioned at the bottom of page 653:
On the 8th March, 1892, notice was given of an instruction to the Committee on the South Eastern Railway Bill, to inquire into and report on the accommodation, etc., supplied to third-class passengers on the railway. The Speaker privately informed the Member, in whose name it stood, that the instruction was not in Order, on the ground that the remedy (if legislation were needed) should be sought in a general statute applicable to all railways alike; that this would be a matter of general policy to be considered at the time not of private, but of public business; and that it would be contrary to the practice of the House to single out the Bill of a particular company and impose on it alone conditions applicable to railways generally.
Then there followed a series of similar examples, of which no doubt you are aware. I submit on this point that this Bill proposes in expressed terms to repeal a measure of large public policy; that is to say, the Workmen's Train Act of 1883, an Act which was dealt with by probably the strongest Royal Commission that has ever sat in this country, the Royal Commission that sat in 1893 on the housing of the working classes. Of that Commission the then Prince of Wales, his late lamented Majesty, was a member. The late Lord Salisbury was a member. The late Lord Goschen another member, the present Marquess of Lincolnshire, the Lord Chamberlain, was another member, and the late Sir Charles Dilke was another member. They definitely laid it down that the Workmen's Train Act of 1883 had been passed, not with regard to the question of what would or would not pay the company, but that it was passed for the purpose of securing easy and cheap access of workmen to their work. That was part of the bargain, that was the principle which was adopted, and there were two parts to that bargain. The first part was that the railway companies were forgiven all future payments of the passenger duty which was then in existence, and the other side of the bargain was that they should run trains. Here is a proposal to-day to alter one side of the bargain, a great public bargain, a matter of large public policy which only ought to be dealt with, as it has hitherto been dealt with, as a matter of public legislation. To attempt to alter one side of the bargain by private legislation is entirely
contrary to the usage, the custom, and the principle of legislation in this House.
That is not the only provision of a public character which it is proposed to repeal by this Bill. Last year this House spent a great deal of time in passing into law the Ministry of Transport Act. At this moment, so far as the Metropolitan District Railway is concerned, it has ample power under the Ministry of Transport Act, passed last year, to go to the Minister of Transport to do two things—to get from him sanction to increase the fares as proposed, and to get from him further, by way of grant or loan, any money that may be necessary to redeem their obligations to their workmen—and I submit that Parliament, and those who are responsible for the administration like yourself, Mr. Speaker, ought to look very jealously at any proposed legislation by private enactment, which seeks to achieve an object which is expressly open to the promoters through a Ministry created by Parliament. There is no question that so far as the Metropolitan District Railway, which is one of the companies mentioned in this Bill, is concerned, they are controlled by the Minister of Transport and they have an absolutely unqualified right to go to him for two permissions—to get permission to raise the fares in the first place, and, secondly, permission, if they are in temporary difficulties owing to the improvement in regard to workmen's wages, to get either a grant or a loan from him. On that the question may be asked why they have not done it. The reason why they have not done it is because under Section 8 of the Ministry of Transport Act last year it is provided that if there is any increase in the revenue earning value of a company due to an increase in fares or rates ordered by the Minister of Transport, then when the period of possession by the Government comes to an end, that increase in the revenue earning value of the company has to be handed over to the Minister of Transport or, in other words, to enure for the benefit of the State and the community. If, on the other hand, he orders any decrease, and there is a corresponding reduction in the revenue-earning capacity of the company, then he has to recoup the company any loss which they have sustained. I suggest that it is to escape that particular provision of a general character, applicable to every railway company in this country—a matter of large general policy
—that this Bill is being sought to be foisted on Parliament, and according to the practice, the principles, and the usage of legislation in this Parliament, it is incumbent upon those like yourself, Mr. Speaker, responsible for the administration of the law of Parliament, to say that this is not in accordance with precedent, but that it is contrary to public policy that there should be an attempt to undo a large public Act, involving a general question of public policy, by a single railway company under the cloak of a private Act of Parliament. Upon these three grounds I submit that this Bill ought not to go to a Second Reading.

Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: I should like to know whether the hon. Member on his point of Order is appealing to you, Mr. Speaker, or to the Government.

Mr. EDWARDS: I am appealing to Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the speech was really more intended for the House than for mc. I will endeavour to deal with the question, but not at such length, I hope. On the first point the hon. Gentleman suggests that the company is not entitled to come forward and ask Parliament to pass this Private Bill on the ground that the company has handed over some of its duties to another company. I think that is insufficient ground for preventing the company coming here at all. The hon. Member is entitled to put that point on the merits of the Bill and to suggest to the House that by reason of the action of the company the House should not grant what the company is now seeking. That is not a point upon which I can rule the Bill out of Order. The second point was that this company had not complied with the promise which was made in the preamble of the Act of 1915. That is not for me to decide That again is a matter entirely for the House to decide. The third point was' that it repeals a public Act and that it is undesirable that a private Bill should repeal a public Act. There are many cases, as the hon. and learned Gentleman shows by the quotation which he read from Sir Erskine May, in which that has happened. It may be allowed if it is necessary. That is entirely a matter for the House and for the Committee to which the Bill may go. The fourth point was that the company
had the right to go to the Ministry of Transport. The company apparently has two methods of procedure open to it. It has decided to come here to ask the House for something for which it could have asked the Ministry of Transport. It certainly is not for me to indicate to the company which course it should take. It is for the company to take whichever course it decides. I think on the whole that the company is to be praised for coming to this House and bringing the matter before the House for its decision. I see no reason for interfering. The points which the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised are points which ho can raise in Debate, and if he can persuade the House to accept his suggestion he is quite entitled to do so.

Mr. BOWERMAN: I beg to move to leave out the word "now" at the end of the Question, and to add the words "upon this day six months."
I cannot refrain from complimenting the promoters of this Bill upon having secured the valuable services of my right hon. Friend and colleague the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas). Everyone in this-House knows the splendid work which my right hon. Friend has done on behalf of the railwayman, and the manner in which their position with regard to wages and so on has been improved. To-night I am interested to note that now he has taken under his charge railway directors and shareholders, and I am not going to express the hope that he will be as successful on their behalf as he has been on behalf of the railwaymen.
My task has been lightened in certain respects by the points of Order raised by the hon. Member opposite. Quite apart from the directors and shareholders-and members of the particular unions to which I have referred, there is another body to be considered, that body being the vast army of workpeople who have to travel day after day by what are known as workmen's trains. It is singular that at a time when the railway companies admittedly cannot carry the passengers that apply for travelling facilities, is the moment chosen for asking this House to agree with them in abrogating the workmen's trains. We who know the congestion on these lines must know the increasing necessity for continuing a practice which has been beneficial to London, and which has been the means of taking workmen and their
wives and families to and from the crowded districts. The companies have encouraged them to live some distance away from their work, and now they are asking this House to stop the practice which has conferred great benefit upon workmen, but which has equally conferred benefits upon the railway companies themselves.
In this case, as I understand from the Bill, they propose to increase the fares by 100 per cent. The present maximum of a penny per mile for third-class passenger fares is to be increased to 2d. a mile, and any distance less than two miles is to be charged as two miles. I assume from my reading of the Bill that that means that a workman will be unable to travel now at a charge of less than 4d. If you carry that further it seems to me, if the Bill goes through, that the fares to be charged will be of such a character that I really do not know where workmen are going to find the money to pay them. At a time like this, this is one of those matters which, if agreed to, are going to add to unrest so far as working people are concerned. It is not a matter merely of workmen or of women, but it applies to young people who travel backwards and forwards day after day, who will be equally badly hit if these proposals are accepted. If the companies—I do not wish to be unjust to them for a moment—instead of allowing workmen in particular—it applies to more than workmen—to be rushed into carriages and dragged out at railway stations, as I and most hon. Members probably have seen, were taking steps to deal with that, I might be prepared to look upon the Bill in a more favourable manner. I characterise it as scandalous the manner in which passengers on our Metropolitan lines have been treated for the last seven or eight or nine years. Admitting, as every reasonable man must admit, that during the period of the War there were certain good reasons why difficulties would have to be met and could not be overcome, yet we have passed that stage, and I have yet to learn that much has been done by these companies to study in a reasonable and proper manner the necessities of the travelling public. This may mean that thousands of working people will have an increased expenditure of from 6s. to 10s. a week in order to travel to and from their work.

Mr. W. THORNE: It will be more than double that in some cases.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. BOWERMAN: I submit, in particular, to the Minister of Transport that that is a serious prospect facing these men and women, and that it is a prospect which this House ought to consider before allowing this Bill to go up before a Committee. I cannot conceive any more serious matter to be considered by this House than the infliction upon these thousands and thousands of working people of an increased charge for railway fares of from 6s. to 10s. a week. That money must come from somewhere, and the result will be the starting of a fresh wage movement in order to recompense these people for the extra loss on travelling. I put this question to the promoters of the Bill, They are a combination of railway companies and bus companies, and on their own showing, so far as passengers are concerned, the railways cannot be said to be in a bankrupt condition. The large bus concern which is part of the combine has not paid its way. I think I am right in saying that something like £500,000 has had to be paid out of the common pool in order to help the London General Omnibus Company. I would have thought that in a business concern, if there was one branch that was not paying, they would knock it off, and not cause those who travel by the railway to make up the loss caused by running an omnibus service. What is that omnibus service? It is run in the main in competition with the municipal tramway service. I think it would be much better if the combine elected to drop that part of their operations and allowed the London County Council to run their tramcars with a better chance of success. As a traveller on the railways, I strongly resent being called upon to pay an increased fare in order that a proportion of it might go to maintain an omnibus service which is unable to pay its way. So far as workmen are concerned, and so far as members of the various Borough Councils in London are concerned, there is a very strong feeling of resentment against this Bill. That resentment has made itself manifest by way of resolutions, by the holding of mass meetings, and in many other ways, and whilst everyone in this House and outside it wishes
that the railwaymen, the men who do the work, the men who help to raise the dividends, should work under the best of conditions, yet I appeal to the House to remember the hundreds of thousands of working people who, by this Bill, are going to suffer in their pockets and, later on, probably in their health, by being forced to come back to districts which are already congested.

Sir E. WILD: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do not profess to speak entirely for the working men, as they are called, or for the working women, but for the whole of the community of London and out of London who are affected by the proposals of the Bill. It is no exaggeration to say that this Bill has struck consternation into most families, both rich and poor, throughout the metropolis. In the second place, nobody is going to pretend that this can be discussed from a sentimental point of view. None will pretend that the concerns which are affected by this discussion are not entitled to be furnished with funds which will enable them efficiently to carry on those concerns, that is to say, to supply the public with proper coaches and convenient methods of travel, and also to pay themselves and their shareholders a reasonable return. The real question that the House has to consider is whether or not the promoters of these Bills have made out a case for more money. The Division which I have the honour, with others, to represent, that of West Ham, is peculiarly affected by this Bill.
I have had it pointed out to me, on behalf of the Corporation of West Ham, that these companies received from Parliament powers on condition that these low rates were charged for workmen, and that the rates were generally in the limits at present imposed. Another point, and it is one of the strongest arguments against giving more money unless a cogent case for more money can be made out, is that many workmen's houses and dwellings have been erected on the outskirts of London on the faith of the Parliamentary obligations to which I have referred. I regret that the House is not fuller than it is at present, because this is a big question, and one which affects a very great number of people. In order to see what is proposed one cannot do better than turn to the statement that has been
presented by the promoters of the Bill. They point out, as my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford has pointed out, that these two companies are in a pool or combine with tramways. This is the London Electric with the General Omnibus Company, and the Underground with two minor omnibus companies. When you turn to the figures you find that upon the figures of 1919 there was a surplus of £1,250,000 in favour of the Underground, but that there was a deficit of nearly £500,000 against the tramway companies.

Sir F. BANBURY: That includes the Government subsidy.

Sir E. WILD: I cannot say everything at once. I had not forgotten the Government subsidy, and I should have thought it would not have required the omni-science of the right hon. Baronet to know that the Government subsidy was something over £500,000. I am reading their own figures. If you take the railway deficiencies, they say, with the deficiencies of the omnibus and of the tramways, there would be a deficiency about equivalent to the Government subsidy to the four railways. I quite agree without the Government subsidy there would have been, on these figures, a slight deficiency against the railways, but it would be very small. The same fact applies with regard to the estimated deficiencies for the year 1920. The point is that the railway companies, if the railways were not weighed down by the omnibuses, would be, to all intents and purposes, a paying concern. They go on to tell us what powers they seek under the Bill, and those powers really are enormous. The first power they seek is to increase their fares by at least 100 per cent. in any case. That is a pretty big order. They then propose, in a light and airy way, to abolish the existing schedules of cheap fares for workmen, which, as an hon. Member pointed out, are Regulations which have been made in public Acts of Parliament. The minimum fare of 2d. is raised to 4d. They indulge in this piece of somewhat callous cynicism:
Workmen's tickets are not issued only to bonâ fide workmen. Practically all passengers riding between 7.30 and 8 o'clock, according to the railway or tramway they use, take workmen's tickets.
It is quite possible that there are people who travel at those unhealthy hours of the morning who may not be what are called working men. I certainly think
that anybody who travels at that time of day, whether he is a manual labourer or not, is entitled to a reduced fare, unless he is coming home from a midnight orgy. That is the case for the Bill, and I rather apprehend, from the rather hurried interruption of the right hon. Baronet, that this Bill is going to receive his blessing. He is an economist in most things, but not where workmen's trains are concerned. I have in my hand the petition of the borough, a part of which I represent, and it is a hard case. The petition points out that West Ham, which is only one of many outer London boroughs, has a population of some 300,000 people, that most of this population gain their livelihood in London—in fact, West Ham and other districts, of what we call the West End of Essex, may be called the dormitory of London. These people have got to come into London in order to do their work, and it points out, as my hon. Friend the Member for Plaistow (Mr. W. Thorne) has said, this is not merely a question of doubling workmen's fares, it is a question in some oases of decupling the fares. The fares can be increased under this Bill by no less than 10, 12 and 14 times the amount that is now paid, and the whole trouble is, I suggest, because of the combine. Under the combine you have a sort of monopoly between the buses, and the underground, and the tubes, and the fact remains that whereas the railways are paying, the buses are losing, and this question does affect the whole question of housing. I am all against subsidies, but it docs seem to me that a subsidy of £500,000 is well spent if it can be in furtherance of the housing problems which this House has got to solve. You have got your housing schemes all outside London. If you increase the fares to workmen and to others, you will take away for them the whole or the main object of living outside London; you will bring them into Central London, you will increase the rents in Central London, and you will largely frustrate your housing schemes. Those are some of the main objections which are made against the Bill, and, of course, if this Bill is passed, it will mean that all fares, all over the place, will go up—other railways, trams, buses, etc.
It may be, of course, that when we hear the promoters they will make out a case, and if they make out a case for powers
they are entitled to powers. I must say that having perused their petition, their Bills, and the statement of their case, I cannot, at the moment, see any case made out. You have the railways paying, the buses losing, and, of course, the effect of the combine is to kill healthy competition; it creates a monopoly; and what is the position of the buses? The London General Omnibus Company is run upon non-business lines. Of course, everybody knows that there are three parts of the day in which people are using vehicular traffic. There is the inrush to town in the morning, there is the slack period in the middle of the day, and there is the outrush away from business in the evening. What do you find? You find that during the slack period of the day you have the buses competing with the municipal trams. You see the buses driving about, very likely, with three or four passengers, and competing with the municipal trams. You find that the buses are not properly distributed, and that there are too many in the inner area and far too few in the outer area. You find in the buses and in the trams—not so much in the tubes, because I have little complaint to make of the tubes—human beings are merely treated as dumb-driven cattle, and especially in the buses, speaking generally, there is no attempt whatever made at ordinary civility, or stopping for people, or letting people, especially women and children, have time to get on and get off. The thing is not run in a businesslike way, and, in my submission, that is largely due to the combine. It is largely due to the fact that the General Omnibus Company was able to pay dividends of 7 or 10 per cent. from the money it drew out of the combine, whereas, if it had not had the combine to fall back upon, it would have had to conduct its business on ordinary business principles. In these circumstances, I really do not understand this enthusiasm for increased fares to the people. It is an interesting commentary.

Sir F. BANBURY: You cannot run a company at a loss. I never knew of a barrister working for nothing.

Sir E. WILD: I do not understand the interjection of the right hon. Baronet. I do not quite know why it is necessary to be so personal. The right hon. Baronet has worked for nothing again and again to prevent many reforms for
the people of this country. When it is a question of trying to protect the people, he cannot complain when his turn comes. If all traffic can be co-ordinated it will be a good thing. It must be remembered that the buses pay nothing for the upkeep of the road. I have seen it argued on the part of the promoters that they have only increased their fares by 30 per cent. They omit to state this fact, that they carry ten passengers—I have this on the highest authority—as against six in pre-war times, and for the money they get out of their ten passengers they only give the same amount of work, because there are so many more people travelling. There are many minor points which might be suggested, but this case will not be dealt with on minor points. My right hon. Friend, the Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas), has joined the combine, and has given the great weight of his name to it. This is the first time my right hon. Friend has played the part of Janus. Coming purely as an ambassador of peace, which is his favourite pose in this House, he stated the other day that if this Bill were not passed there would be a strike.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: It is most important that such an unfair statement should be corrected. I did not state that, as the OFFICIAL REPORT shows.

Sir E. WILD: The OFFICIAL REPORT shows that the hon. Member did not state that he was in favour of it, but that it would happen.

Mr. THOMAS: No.

Sir E. WILD: Well, there was something said about it. However, I expressly said that my right hon. Friend was only an ambassador, and entirely dissociated himself from any desire that such a strike should take place. I am perfectly certain his whole life shows that if there is one man who hates strikes, and would have nothing to do with strikes, it is the right hon. Member for Derby. The House will not be frightened by any threat of strikes, but will be influenced by the desire that working men should be properly paid, and if my right hon. Friend can, as he may be able—and I would much rather take it from him than the right hon. Baronet—to make out a case, and can really show us that without this money, or some money, the men cannot
be properly paid, I should be the last person to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill.
The last thing I want to say is that the House owes a very great debt of gratitude to the London Members, particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, because the work that the London Members have done in respect of this Bill has been very great. Speaking as a Member for outer London, I can render that service, because it has been done by a Committee more of inner London. I know that yesterday there was a meeting between London Members and Lord Ashfield. The result is the Instruction down upon the Paper in the names of the hon. Members for Hammersmith, Southwark, Dulwich, and others. I do think—trying to speak quite candidly—that this is not a matter into which any heat needs to be imported, but that the Instruction, if accepted, will greatly benefit the Bill. Under that Instruction the Committee that will be appointed under this Bill will have power to consider the whole financial position, to protect the working men, and to see that the company does not have more money than it ought to have. That is really the point of our opposition; which, putting it in a nutshell, is this: no greater mistake can be made than to give a company, rendering public service, too much money so that it can be independent of Parliamentary control. At the present moment I feel it is right to second the rejection of the Bill, although I am perfectly open to argument. I do, however, hope that this Bill will receive very sincere consideration from the House, because it has provoked very great interest outside, not only amongst working men, but amongst all users of the underground, the buses and the trams.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Sir Eric Geddes): My excuse for intervening so early in the Debate is that I thought perhaps it might assist the House in coming to a decision if I stated the Government position, and gave, among the welter of figures to which the House is being treated to-night, the figures which, after the most careful investigation by accountants for six or seven weeks, we have arrived at as regards the finances of this Combine. First, I should like, if I may, to refer to what the hon. and learned Member for North-West
Ham said about the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby. The difficulty about the paying of the men on these undertakings is that it is impossible to separate the Metropolitan District Railway, which is controlled by the Government, and to which the settlement made for the rest of the railways of the country applies, from the Tube railways, worked under the same general management.

Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: Why?

Sir E. GEDDES: You would immediately have a strike upon the tubes, because the men would have to be paid the same wages. You cannot separate men doing the same work and pay them different rates! It is quite impossible. Take the locomotive settlement made in the early part of last year. That was applied to the tubes although, as the finances show, the tubes could not afford that additional wage. They accepted it in order to keep the service going. There has been a settlement for the other grades. If this addition is to be given on the District as well as on the Tubes, then we must have additional revenue in some form or other. You have authorised this from the other well as on the tubes, then we must have additional revenue to pay these extra wages.
My hon. and learned Friend said the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby came here with a threat, but I think he was hardly fair to him. I was in the House, and all that was said—and I think the OFFICIAL REPORT will bear me out—was that the men were getting restive over the delay in regard to this payment. As regards the combine, the House will recollect that it was decided in 1915, by a special Act, to promote this combine which in no way limited or reduced the statutory obligations of the various companies. This was done because a part of the combine was not paying, and at that time the buses were the prosperous part of the combine. In the preamble of that Bill it was laid down that in order to maintain the requisite service for the public, and provide increased wages and expenses to enable further facilities to be charged, it was necessary that they should have power to deal with their respective rates. A good deal has been said about the housing question, and bow those who live some distance from the town will be
affected if such increases as are proposed are granted. As a matter of fact, the promoters of this Bill have powers which would enable them to raise a very considerable revenue on the long distance passengers. They could do that, but it would be a suicidal policy which would congest London. It is in regard to the short distances that we require additional powers. It is said why not cut off the buses and let the municipalities look after the traffic.
I do not wish to compare municipal and private enterprise at this stage, but it is a very significant thing that only last Monday I received a deputation of one of the Whitley Councils connected with the tramways, and they agreed that increased wages are necessary for the men, and that it is impossible to pay it unless our charges are increased. It is not only the companies that will have to raise their charges, but it is municipalities as well, and there are hundreds of them. I would like to put it on record I had to agree that I would, recommend the Cabinet that it was indispensable that at the earliest possible date, to meet the just demands of these men, that the Government should introduce emergency legislation to enable the charges of municipal undertakings to be put up, and that will have to be done at a very early date, otherwise there will be no municipal trams running in the country. This Council has agreed that it is essential that the men should have more money, and so we had to give that undertaking. So we have to give that undertaking. We must all agree with everything that has been said about the undesirability of continuing the cycle of increasing charges and wages and prices. We all agree, and we also regret, that there should not be the best service, and that it should be a crowded service. But we must also face facts. It is no use expecting a prosperous transport undertaking unless you give it a reasonable living wage and enable it to raise capital. Here are some figures which I had endeavoured to put as simply as possible. They have been published in the voluminous addendum; to the Report of the Committee on London Traffic, and I have extracted them with the hope of clearly bringing to the House the position of the companies. I am merely taking the companies themselves, and not the finance companies which control them, and I am
taking them at the best estimate of working charges and revenue at existing rates. They are the result of an investigation over a period of seven weeks. The estimated profit of the four railways in the combine is £833,000 a year, and on the buses, if you add them, you get a loss of £177,000 a year. That is without any interest at all. If you add the prior charge" on the four railways and the London General Omnibus Company you get a loss of £1,016,000, making a total loss of £1,194,000. That is without giving the ordinary stock any interest at all. If you add 4 per cent. on the ordinary stock you get a gross loss of £1,900,000.

Mr. C. EDWARDS: Does not that Estimate of £1,194,000 include all the prior charges and the 4 per cent. on the ordinary stock?

Sir E. GEDDES: If you take all their existing powers, leaving out the long distance rates, which only make matters far worse, and if the workers do not put up their rates, the practical action of the existing powers is to give about £300,000 a year additional revenue, and then, if you raise the bus fares which you can when you put up the railway fares, you get another £400,000, so that on existing powers it is pratically open to raise £700,000 against the loss on the prior charges and a loss on the working of £1,194,000. I am leaving out the 4 per cent. altogether.

Mr. PERRING: To what extent is it proposed to increase the bus fares in order to produce that?

Sir E. GEDDES: I am afraid I cannot answer that. This matter was very carefully considered. The Report of the Committee on London Traffic gives the figures, and I would like to quote something from that Report. It is this:
To what extent fares or any of them should be raised so as to become economic is a matter for close investigation and we are of opinion that the most suitable method of reaching a definite conclusion is through the medium of the Private Bill Committee of the House of Commons, which from the detailed statement furnished by the Minister of Transport, should be able to settle—

(1) The present value of the share capital on which a reasonable rate of remuneration should be paid;
(2) The rate of remuneration which can be considered reasonable;
742
(3) The percentage of increase in fares necessary to place the undertaking on a sound working basis."
That expresses very clearly the attitude of the Government on this Bill. It appears to us absolutely beyond dispute that, if these undertakings are to go on serving the public at the present-day cost, they are entitled to an inquiry as to whether they can go on financially as a healthy concern. I have been asked why we did not deal with it under the Ministry of Transport Act. It would have been possible to have taken possession of these railway undertakings and to have authorised an increase in the fares. I will tell the House quite frankly. It involves considering these questions which have been put down by the Committee on London Traffic: what is a reasonable return on capital? That is a very difficult thing to ask any one Minister to lay down in putting up the fares for the whole of London. What is the present share value of the capital I Frankly, I did not want to act in an arbitrary way in this matter. I wanted to get help and consideration, and where can I get better consideration than from a Committee of the House of Commons? That is why we did not act under the Ministry of Transport Act, and, I submit, with very good reason. That is the reason that I am asking the House to-night to grant a Second Reading to this Bill. I do not commit the Government to any single figure in the Bill; only to this, that the promoters of the Bill are entitled to consideration of their position, and I ask the House to give it.

Mr. THOMAS: Whatever differences of opinion there may be as to my attitude on this particular Bill, there will be at least general agreement that I am not taking the popular side as a Labour man in taking this action. On the other hand, facts must be faced. As my right hon. Friend says, the combine may be fortunate in having my assistance. I only observe that the Seconder of the Motion ought at least to keep it in mind when he twits us about our connections with strikes, cheap sneers do not alter the fact that for five years in this country we have been subject to much industrial trouble. The House of Commons only hears of disputes that take place, and nothing of the thousands of disputes that we are able to prevent taking place. It ill becomes hon. Members of this House, if they knew the facts, to twit
one on the differences and disputes that take place, when one's daily efforts are devoted to at least trying to keep things smooth. The difference between my right hon. Friend (Mr. Bowerman) and myself in this matter is a very simple one. He, like me, has succeeded in obtaining improved conditions for our men. Repeatedly he has gone to the printing trade and said to the employers, "We want more money," and, incidentally, he has managed to persuade the employers to give the compositors much more than we have succeeded in persuading the railway companies to give us. The result is that the employers have granted concessions to the printing trade, and they have granted concessions to the men represented by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. W. Thorne). The result has been that the printing bill has gone up 300 per cent., and they have now had to come to Parliament to justify it. Incidentally, I have no record of my right hon. Friend ever asking the employers where the money came from when he went and made the proposal.
That is exactly the situation, and we had to face this fact. I have said to the men outside, as I say here—and there is nothing that the working classes ought to realise more—that you cannot get more out of an industry than is put into it. That is not a new doctrine. I have preached it to the men just as readily as in this House. The result is that we made this agreement. Here is the answer to the question, "Why did the Company not pay the section control," I would ask the House of Commons to visualise the situation. There are 500,000 members in my organisation. Rightly or wrongly, they believe that there ought to be uniform conditions. They believe that the railwayman, merely because he works for one particular company, ought not to be treated differently from the man working for another company. I think that is quite sound, and I think the House will agree that it is. The result is that we negotiated with the Government, and fixed up the agreement. Forty-nine per cent. of the employés of the Underground are covered by what is called the Government subsidy, that is, the Metropolitan District Railway, and 51 per cent. are not covered. Therefore we could have said—and, indeed, it is only fair to the right
hon. Gentleman to say that he offered straight away to do so—that the agreement must be applied to those controlled by the Government. I had, however, to take this into consideration. Suppose that we accepted that, and 49 per cent. of the men were left outside. They are not concerned whether the railway is controlled or not. They are not conversant with the details of the finance. They are not influenced by, and know very little about, the pooling arrangement. All they know is that they are working for the same employer, doing the same work, and are entitled to the same conditions.

Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he himself and those with him urged the Government that the Transport Department should exercise their power and control the tubes as well as the Metropolitan District?

Mr. THOMAS: I can assure my hon. Friend that I will state the case fairly, and he can answer me. If it were agreed that the 51 per cent. of the men should be paid and 49 per cent. left outside, I ask the House of Commons to imagine what would have happened. The men would have said, "No, we will stop work," and the 51 per cent. would have said, "Yes, and we will stop with you." The result was that we said "No." Common sense and our experience prove that in the interest of peace it would be much better for the whole of the men to be treated alike. This difficulty is not a new one. Hon. Members have talked about this pooling arrangement as if it were something this House had nothing to do with, but it had all to do with it, and, incidentally, we had a Debate. The London County Council opposed the Bill, and I myself gave evidence in support of it upstairs. But curiously enough the situation then was the reverse of what it is to-day. My union wanted the tubes taken over, and the present Prime Minister, who was then in charge of Munitions, was in favour of it. We met Lord Kitchener, with the authority of the then Minister of Munitions, and we said to him: "In our judgment it ought to be possible for the Government to take over the whole of this transport system and control it." Lord Kitchener gave one short answer. He said: "I only agree to the taking over of the railways for military reasons, and
there was no other object in the agreement arrived at with the Government except for military reasons, and seeing that the tubes serve no military purpose there is no justification for them taking them over." We then again urged the Prime Minister, and the answer he gave was that the War Office had turned it down and nothing could be done. At that moment this very serious situation arose. The omnibuses were paying a fairly good dividend, but the railways were not only not paying a dividend, as they had never done, but they were not meeting the prior charges of one or two of the smaller companies. We met the management, and they said: "We do not want a strike. We agree that our men should be treated as fairly as other men, we agree that they should have the same conditions, and there is only one way out of the difficulty. If the Government will not take over the tubes, we are prepared to use the omnibus money in order to meet the increased charges of the railways." I said then: "Very well, if that can be done I will render all the assistance possible." I supported the Bill then, as I do to-night. I hope in these dangerous times it is not going to be a crime when employers and employés happen to agree. We hear from time to time the doctrine that it would be far better if the relationship of both sides is more amicable, and I agree, and then immediately we find ourselves face to face with something that is common to both, and then we are to be twitted that it is an unholy alliance and against the public. I agree with the Report of the Traffic Committee that there ought to be a unified system and a unified control, but I am, and always have been, entirely opposed to a subsidy, but if there is to be a subsidy for the underground railways of London, I want a subsidy for the railways of Derby.

Sir J. D. REES: And Nottingham.

Mr. THOMAS: The hon. Gentleman is capable of looking after the interests of Nottingham, and I thought I would leave that preserve to him. At all events, I believe, as far as the traffic of London is concerned, there ought to be unified control. I am sure my right hon. Friend merely made a debating point in saying there was going to be an increase of 100 per cent. I do not agree that it ought to be left to
any railway company, regardless of public interests, to fix any charge. I do not agree that it ought to be within the power of a railway company to make any charge they like for workmen's fares. I do not believe that they ought to have the power to alter the Workmen's Train Act; but I do say that this House ought to say honestly and fairly that it is going to do justice to all. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Bowerman) made the astounding suggestion that if the buses do not pay take them off. I should like to know what is his regard for his constituents; what would happen to the London workmen if the buses were to be taken off? If his suggestion is logic, and if he really means it, then he must say that if the underground railways do not pay, take them off. It is simply absurd; we have to face this fact, that the service that is rendered to the public of London is something that we cannot measure in words. We all know perfectly well what would happen if they were stopped. Therefore it is for a Committee upstairs to examine this question in all its bearings. Much has been said about the finance. It is not for me to defend the finance; but it is for a Committee of the House of Commons, acting as the guardians of the public, to say what are the facts of the case. That cannot be argued across the Floor of the House. Nobody can accurately say what ought to be the fares charged. No one can pretend to protect even the travelling public unless they have made a very careful and thorough examination into the whole situation. By giving a Second Reading to this Bill that can be done. I want to correct what my hon. Friend (Sir E. Wild) said. In all trade disputes I believe that the more publicity that is given to the difficulty, the more likely you are to arrive at a settlement. Where the public is involved the public should know the facts. What I said was taken as a threat. I merely stated what I knew was the decision of the men.

Sir E. WILD: I said the right hon. Gentleman stated it as an ambassador.

Mr. THOMAS: All I have to say, and it is fair that I should say it, is that we have met the management of the company and the agreement arrived at by the London members, which I understand is satisfactory to them, merely puts these companies into precisely the same position as the
trunk lines are in to-day so far as fares are concerned. In the next place they have given an intimation that on the Second Reading of this Bill the wages will be paid, and I hope that will smooth over the difficulties. I ask the House to understand that, so far as myself and our union are concerned, I do not apologise for being compelled in this House to disagree with the majority of my party, and to disagree with large numbers of workmen who I am proud to represent. I do it because I believe that this is a just and honest case, and because I believe that when workmen and trade union officials come up against facts they have to consider, not what is popular or unpopular, but what is right and just. Upon these grounds I support the Bill.

Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: This matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Vote!"] It is all very well for hon. Members to say "Vote," but this matter is one of life and death to the great constituency which I represent, and much as I would like to study the personal convenience of Members of this House, I must put the interests of my constituents first. I put a specific question to the Minister of Transport and I also put the same question to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Thomas) who has just sat down. It is argued by both of them that it is a necessity, from the financial point of view and the wages point of view, that this Bill should be passed to enable the combined companies to pay the wages of the Tube men, because the Tube railways are not under the control of the Government. I asked the leader of the railway men if he had requested the Minister of Transport to exercise the powers expressly provided in Section 3 of the Transport Act by giving a month's notice so as to control these Tubes. His answer is, "Leave it alone. I will deal with it in a moment or two," and he then goes back five years.

Mr. THOMAS: I am sorry if I did not make it clear. I wanted to say I went back five years, and since I made the same request and the right hon. Gentleman gave the same answer to me as he gave to-night.

11.0 P.M.

Mr. EDWARDS: [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] I am quite sure that hon. Members are not aware that the Eleven o'clock Rule does not apply. I shall be
as brief as I can, but, as representing my constituents, I insist on stating to the House all the points which I desire to put. The point which I wish to emphasise is that the Minister of Transport is expressly authorised by the Act of last year to take over the Tube railways, and instead of coming to this House and committing the whole Government to sanctioning the consideration of this Bill, he ought, in the interests of the public and in discharge of his duty, to have taken over these railways, unless it could be found that finance was forthcoming under the pooling arrangement of 1915. He has submitted certain figures to this House. These do not really represent the figures as given by his financial experts, which appear in the Report of the Advisory Committee on London Traffic. If the actual figures are given, there is a totally different state of things disclosed. I agree with those who think that the Combine and every company in the Combine is entitled to charge such fares as will give them a proper remuneration upon the actual capital invested.

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: The hon. Gentleman has stated that the figures given by the Minister of Transport are not the figures shown in the Report. They are, and can be seen on pages 16 and 17.

Mr. EDWARDS: I say they do not truly represent the position, and I will proceed to show that. This is not a new problem. There was a Traffic Committee that sat upstairs last summer. I was a member, and I had an opportunity of very closely examining and cross-examining witnesses in the matter of the finance of the combine, and I say emphatically that the people who have come here as the promoters of this Bill have come representing a whole lot of spurious, bogus, watered capital.

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: May I ask whether my hon. Friend asserts that the capital of the company is not represented properly?

Mr. EDWARDS: I do. I say that of the £43,000,000 represented as the capital of the Underground Electric Railway Company of London, Limited, £19,000,000 is spurious and watered.

Sir J. D. REES: What is the relevance of that?

Mr. EDWARDS: I can quite understand the hon. Baronet asking. The relevance is that they are coming here and making out that they have not the wherewithal from the present fares to pay themselves an ordinary dividend.

Sir J. D. REES: That is so.

Mr. EDWARDS: What have they done? They have taken out of their income that which would have paid substantial ordinary dividends, and they have created spurious stock without putting any money in. There is no question about it. Never mind about the report of last year. I commend to hon. Members the report of 38 pages, which was published this morning. Take the case of the holding of this combine concern, which was promoted by a German financier, and which is at this moment directed secretly by a German financier, who has an enormous holding held in trust by one of the banks, in London. We are asked to abrogate the workman's train, to give power to penalise the poor working girl of East London and South-East London, in the interest of that kind of finance. That is the position, and I challenge contradiction.

Sir E. GEDDES: In dealing with these figures the hon. Member has referred to the combine and to a gentleman of German extraction who was connected with it at one time. Those figures have nothing to, do with the combine at all, but are the figures of an operating company.

Mr. EDWARDS: With great respect you speak of these figures as being the figures of the operating companies. What I say is, that these figures to which reference has been made, are the figures of the Underground Railway Company, and are the figures of the London General Omnibus Company. The entire holding of some of these companies is under the control of the Octopus Company, and you cannot differentiate what are the figures.

Mr. J. JONES: What about the Equipment Company?

Mr. EDWARDS: These figures include stocks which are held by the same people, but they also embrace stocks which are held by the controlling company in those particular concerns. Let me take an example. The London Central Electric Company came to Parliament and obtained a franchise. Broadly speaking, the shareholders of that concern were
satisfied with the 3 per cent. they were getting. What happened? The Octopus Company comes along and says: "If you will hand over the whole of your ordinary stock of £3,000,000 we will guarantee you 4 per cent. dividend." On their own admission in evidence not a single farthing was promised to the London Central Electric in return, and now the House is asked to increase the fares of the London Central Electric. That is an example of the thing that is happening. Let us take the Metropolitan District, the old Underground, the railway with which I am most concerned now, because it is the railway which carries seventy-five per cent. of the bread-winners in East Ham to and from their work. The combine in that case undertook to electrify the railway, and that electrification cost, on their own admission, something like £1,300,000, in return for which they got the creation of stock of somewhere about £5,000,000. Not merely that, but they bought the ordinary £100 stock of the Metropolitan and District at £25, and they created water 37 per cent. above that. They now come to the House for power to earn a reasonable dividend on the whole 137 per cent. instead of upon the £25 which they paid. In this financial report, which has been presented by the financial experts of the right hon. Gentleman's Department, they say, in Clause 9:
With regard to the suggested allowance of 4 per cent. on ordinary capital, it must be pointed out that such an allowance on shares, some of which have been issued at a discount or purchased at low value raises a question of very great importance which may conceivably have far-reaching results.
That is the solemn report of the financial advisers to the right hon. Gentleman. I would ask hon. Members to get a copy of Paper No. 636, issued this morning. Now I will talk of the methods that have been adopted. What happened upstairs in the Committee? The Combine came before that Committee, over which the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. K. Jones), so ably presided, they pretended that they had made a clean breast of every one of their ramifications when they submitted the statement of accounts for five companies that they controlled. One of their witnesses swore positively, in answer to a question of mine, that they were the whole of the companies that they controlled, yet, bit by bit, we dragged out of them, after a
witness had fainted and they had tried to substitute other witnesses, that at the back of those five companies there were seven other companies, many of whom appeared for large capital, which were bogus and spurious and for which no money at all had passed. It is vital that hon. Members should appreciate this point. Take the case of the London General Omnibus Company. At the time that Company was taken over it was both an operating company and a manufacturing company, and they simply detached the manufacturing company from the other, and they created quite spurious capital; that is to say, that they gave the combine either 1,000,000 or 1,500,000 of shares, representing the larger part, without anything in return, except that these same people, the directors of that Company, also directors of the. London General Omnibus Company, which had been part and parcel, gave them a contract to manufacture buses for the other half of the thing that had been split for some years to come. Then the War came, and this Company manufactured buses and lorries for the Government and made huge profits, which went to the combine without a single halfpenny having been expended by any one member of the combine in the matter of invested capital in this particular concern, and so on with all these companies.
What is the broad financial position? I say unhesitatingly, first of all, that I agree that capital has got to have its return, and I would not merely give these people a fair return on the capital they have invested and on the stock they have bought at a low price, but I would give them something for the skill they have manifested in running the traffic of London, and there is a great deal of credit due to them for that. I would also give them ample remuneration to enable them to carry on, but what I do say is this: They are not entitled to come to this House without having performed their part of the bargain, and they are not entitled to come to this House and ask us to give them a return on a whole lot of perfectly spurious capital.

Sir F. BANBURY: Why spurious?

Mr. EDWARDS: I am very glad the right hon. Baronet has asked the question, and it is spurious in this sense. Take the case of the Metropolitan Underground.
They agreed to electrify at a certain sum. They electrify, roughly, for £1,300,000, and they get paid for that in the form of ordinary shares. But, as part and parcel of the consideration, they get permission to create, roughly, £3,000,000 of preferential stock upon which 5 and 6 per cent. is guaranteed. I say the whole of that £3,000,000 preference stock is spurious and bogus. If the evidence which was dragged out of those people upstairs was in the minds of the Members of this House, we should no more consider the advisability of reading this Bill a second time than we did with the Cardiff Railway Bill four years ago, when bogus and spurious finance similar to this was disclosed, and I hope the House will not grant a Second Beading to this Bill. The promoters have not carried out their bargain under the pooling arrangement of 1915, and, in spite of the appeal of the Government, I hope that Members will have the courage to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill. I warn the London Members and I warn the Government, that by sanctioning this measure—if they do sanction it—they will have created for themselves a storm that will swallow them very quickly.

Mr. GILBERT: As the London Members have been referred to more than once in this Debate, perhaps I may be allowed to put before the House exactly what the London Members have done upon this Bill. I do not think there is a single London Member who can say that part of his constituency at least does not have to depend on one or more of the different services of what is called the Combine. When this Bill was promoted in this House some of us London Members took a very keen interest in its contents, and my name appears among those on the paper to-night to move the rejection of the Bill. My name was put down directly the measure was put down for Second Reading. Since then conferences of the London Members of the Unionist and Liberal parties have been held on four different occasions with the chairman of the Combine companies. Those conferences have been very long, and all kinds of questions have been asked. Some Members may have seen printed notes which have been circulated of these conferences. All the London Members who attended those conferences, and even some of the extra-London Members who also attended, are,
I think, keen on keeping down fares to the lowest possible limit, and at the same time getting the very best service for London that it is possible to obtain. The work of these conferences and the questions addressed to the Chairman of the Company were with that object. At these conferences all kinds of questions were asked about capital, the pooling of profits—on which I personally feel very strongly—and so on. As a result of the fourth conference, held yesterday, we agreed with the Chairman of the Committee that he would agree, that a certain Instruction, being passed by this House, should be accepted by the promoters of the Bill. That Instruction is on the Order Paper in the names of six London Members, put down by instruction of yesterday's Conference of London Members. I suggest that the London Members who have taken part in these Conferences during the last month have done something practical to turn this Bill to the benefit of London traffic. If hon. Members will read the Introduction they will see that it is
an instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be committed, after inquiry into the financial position of the various companies named in the Bill,….
our object being that the Committee upstairs, dealing with the Bill, should have instructions to inquire into the financial position of the undertakings and to deal with the questions that have been raised in debate to-night. If this instruction be passed we believe the Committee will fully inquire into the financial position and into the questions raised to-night. There is a further instruction—
(a) So as to provide that the maximum powers of charge in excess of the fares which the companies are now authorised to charge shall not be more than are required to provide from time to time for working expenses, efficiently maintaining and renewing the undertakings, and a reasonable return on capital.
That, I think, bears out very much what the Minister of Transport said to-night. It does away with the maximum charge that the promoters have in the Bill, of 2d. per mile, and the minimum fare of 4d. There is also—
(b) That workmen's return fares between any two stations shall not exceed the single ordinary fare for a journey between those stations, with a minimum fare of threepence London Members who attended at those Conferences are very keen on retaining,
if at all possible, workmen's fares in the Bill. If the Bill had passed in its original form without the instruction, the Committee upstairs would not be able to insert workmen's fares in the Bill
I, therefore, respectfully submit to the House that if this Instruction—which has been drawn up by the London Members in conference with the promoters of the Bill, which the promoters are quite willing to accept, and which, I understand, the Government are willing to accept on behalf of the promoters—be carried, we have done something to see that the London passenger gets a reasonable fare, and that the workmen are not forgotten under paragraph (b). I hope, if the House give a Second Reading to this Bill, we shall agree to the Instruction put forward by the London Members.

Sir HERBERT NIELD: With only two exceptions no people living in my Constituency can reach their homes without using this Combine. When the position which was explained at the conference of London Members is understood, it will be seen that hitherto the companies have shown great moderation, inasmuch as they have never advanced their fares to the maximum. Where an ordinary fare was 7d. or 7½d. they had a right to charge 11d., and I think that disposes of some of the charges levelled against the companies to-night. I am the chairman of the county committee of Middlesex, and as no part of Middlesex is outside one or other of the branches of this Combine we were very much disturbed by this proposed increase of fares. Although I prefer another Instruction which is down on the Paper, which is an alternative just as acceptable to the promoters as the one which has been decided upon by the London Members, in view of the practical unanimity which prevailed I consented that that Instruction should be passed over in favour of the one we are supporting. I desire to say that tomorrow I intend formally to move at the time of Private Business the same Instruction in respect of the Metropolitan Railway Bill. Two other Bills, the South Metropolitan Tramway Company and the London United Tramway Company, are being held over, and when these Bills are sent up they should all have the same Instruction applied to place them upon an equal footing. Then I think we may leave it to the Select Committee, under this Instruction, to deal with the
allegations which have been made with regard to finance, and have them fully investigated, and I do not think that any decision will be arrived at unless and until every opportunity has been given to reassure the public that what is sought now ought to be granted as the minimum of what is rendered necessary by the times in which we live.

Mr. PERRING: The statement that the fares of workers using these railways will be raised from 6s. to 10s. should not be allowed to pass unchallenged. When hon. Members realise that the number of passengers carried over the system covered by the Combine exceeds 1,500,000,000 it will be seen it does not require a very large increase of fares to make up the deficit which the companies are called upon to pay. If each passenger carried over the system paid an increase of one penny that would provide six millions sterling, and inasmuch as the average journey of each passenger is two miles—according to information furnished by the companies—the necessary increase would represent not more than halfpenny per mile. This should be made clear in view of the alarmist assertions by various Members of this House which ought not to be allowed to go unchallenged.

Mr. W. THORNE: I will give cases to the contrary in a minute.

Mr. PERRING: In regard to workmen's fares, there are only 70,000,000 of them out of the total of 1,500,000,000 and inasmuch as the cost of a workman's fare is only 2d., and there is a deficit on every such fare of l.36d., it would only require an average fare of 3d. over the whole number of workmen's fares to make up the deficit which the companies claim will exist. Therefore the statements as to enormous increases of fares are not justified, and inasmuch as the Committee are to be instructed to go into all the details to which I have referred there is every reason to hope that the Committee will protect the travelling public, and we shall have justice done to those whom we represent here. I think it is only fair in justice to the London members who have taken the trouble to deal with this question that we should not allow these statements to go unchallenged. I am quite sure that when the Committee do go into the facts the travelling public
will get the justice that they are entitled to, and that the companies will get all that they have a just claim to ask for—that they will get what they are entitled to—their working expenses covered and a reasonable dividend on the invested capital.

Mr. J. JONES: I am not a financial expert and am not therefore going into figures. Although figures cannot lie, liars can figure. All the experience I gained as a member of the first Committee set up after I became a Member of this House proved to me the possibility of hiding facts behind a mass of figures. I want to support the hon. Member for South East Ham in his denunciation of the methods of giving evidence which was exemplified before the Committee. When we got the witnesses into a corner, they were sheltered very conveniently by those who were interested, and until we get the real facts regarding the finances of these undertakings, I say we have no right to pass measures through this House which are likely to put very heavy burdens on the people of London. I want to suggest, if I may be allowed to do so, that when the companies secured these powers in the first place, they obtained them on the principle that they were going to render a great service to the public of London. The Metropolis at that time was becoming very congested, and the companies were given certain privileges for the purpose of getting the people from the inner circle to the outer area of London. The people went out believing that they were going to have cheap fares from the outer ring to the inner ring. But what is going to happen as a consequence of this Bill? The people who have been spread out in an area of twenty or thirty miles from the centre are now to be charged the ordinary fares, while workmen's fares will be increased to the single fare. That is the principle underlying this Bill—the principle of the abolition of workmen's fares. I know that some hon. Members do not like the idea of workmen having privileges. They think their only privilege should be to travel to work early. But surely that is a privilege which ought to be abolished. In my opinion the workman should be able to go up to town as early or as late as his boss. But seeing that he has to travel up in the early morning, the privilege he has hitherto possessed is to be taken from him, and
in future if this Bill pass his fare is to be at the rate of 3d. return between Stations. May I remind some of the London Members that their friends and supporters have to travel fifteen miles to their work within the London area. What fare will they have to pay under the new Bill? Will they not have to pay the single ordinary fare, which is called the workman's fare, under the new proposal? Who made that compromise? It is all very well for the hon. Member for South wark, within a penny of Westminster Bridge, but what about the men living in West Ham, East Ham, Tottenham, Enfield, and other places that supply the workmen for London? They are going to be charged the ordinary single fare, and that is going to be called the workman's fare for the return journey. It really means from 6s. to 10s. for the men, women, and boys and girls living in the outer area.
This is a Bill supported by so-called "democrats" in order to produce a dividend for hook-nosed patriots who sing "God save the King" in broken English—the men who have got hold of the Combine. This is the direct result of the financial jiggery-pokery that has been going on in connection with London traffic. We are not so much affected, because we have our own tramway system, but I know what the result of this Bill will be. As soon as the proposals of the Bill are through, there will be a general increase in travelling expenses throughout London. I am not speaking for the strongly organised Trade Unionists of London, who can get what they want by industrial action; I am speaking for the people who cannot help themselves, the men, women, and children whose fares are going to be increased enormously by this Bill. We know what goes on upstairs. Generally, there is a certain amount of secrecy. [HON. MEMBERS: Why?] I have heard enough upstairs to prove it to me. I have found vested interests well installed when I have got there, and it makes me tired of the business upstairs. When we got to the Committee stage of the Trans port Bill all the various interests were well represented, and when it came to the vote it was the vested interest first, and the public nowhere. I venture to suggest that no proof has yet been given of the necessity for this Bill. Why have we a loss of £750,000 on the omni
buses in one year? What profits are made by the Associated Equipment Company? If we are to have a Traffic Combine in London, why should not the people who make the omnibuses help the people who lose on the omnibuses? [HON. MEMBERS: Do not they?] They do not, because it has been separated from the Combine for the purposes of dividend paying. There is a certain gentleman who holds shares in one part of the Combine and who controls the whole business. It is the public who pay every time; it is heads they win and tails we lose. I venture to suggest that a Bill of this kind simply means trying it on the people, and it is nearly time the people said they were not going to have any more of it. Why should we have buses running if they cannot pay their way? It means that what is lost on the swings is gained on the roundabouts. The railways do pay. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, according to your own evidence given before the Committee the railways did pay; but they had to subsidise the buses, they had to subsidise the trams, and because they had to do that they were brought into a position of financial incapacity. [AN HON. MEMBER: "What about the Member for Derby?"] I am not talking about the Member for Derby. He is representing the people he represents, and I am representing the people I represent.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: With different ideas.

Mr. JONES: So far as I am concerned, I want public control of public services. I am not going to enter into a compact merely for the sake of members of my own union, to try to bleed the public in order that I my get an increase in wages for them or for any other section. The people that I represent stand for real recognition of public responsibility. We are paying at the rate of £5,000 a mile for the maintenance of our roads. I know it is all one. The Metropolitan Tramways Company are part of the Combine, and some of their shareholders are interrupting me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name?"] I am not naming anyone. "No names, no pack drill." I am not going to slander anyone if I can help it, but I am going to tell the truth. I want the House to recognise that, so far as we are concerned, we are paying at
the rate of £5,000 a mile for the maintenance of our roads, which are used by this Combine, and they pay nothing at all. Is not that going to be counted in? Are we going to be always treated as Cinderellas in the public service? Our own tramways have not come along and asked for the right to increase their fares. We have not asked Parliament to get us out of our troubles. We are facing our troubles, as we ought to do; but those who believe in private enterprise always beating public enterprise, who talk about individual property as against public property, come and say, "For God's sake get us out of our trouble." [An HON. MEMBER: "How about the rates?"] The people are willing to pay the rates. What they grumble at is that, whilst we are maintaining our roads, laying down our rails, and paying all the expenses of laying down a proper service for the public, you come along with

your Combine and use the roads and do not pay us anything for the use of them. Give us fair and equal opportunity, and we can show you the way to run public services for the public good. I oppose this Bill because, in the first place, we have not the full facts so far as finance is concerned. When it goes upstairs, my right hon. Friend opposite may talk as much as he likes about getting the facts from the people concerned, but he will get just as many facts as we got when we had the last Select Committee. I am opposing the Bill on behalf of the workers of the East End of London, with my hon. Friend opposite (Sir E. Wild), and I hope it will be rejected by this House.

Mr. THOMAS: rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 137; Noes, 21.

Division No. 71.]
AYES.
[11.45 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
O'Neill, Major Hen. Robert W. H.


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Hailwood, Augustine
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Hail, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.


Baldwin, Stanley
Hanna, George Boyle
Parker, James


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Perring, William George


Barlow, Sir Montague
Hartshorn, Vernon
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Barrie, Charles Coupar
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Belialrs, Commander Carlyon W.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Purchase, H. G.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hills, Major John Waller
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Benn, Com. Ian H. (Greenwich)
Hinds, John
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)


Betterton, Henry B.
Holmes, J. Stanley
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hood, Joseph
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland
Hopkins, John W. W.
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Berwick, Major G. O.
Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hurd, Percy A.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Brown, Captain D. C.
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Jameson, J. Cordon
Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Marylebone)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Jephcott, A. R.
Seddon, J. A.


Butcher, Sir John George
Jessen, C.
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Camplon, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Cautley, Henry S.
Johnson, L. S.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Chadwick, R. Burton
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)
Stevens, Marshall


Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole
Kidd, James
Stewart, Gershom


Curzon, Commander Viscount
Kiley, James D.
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
King, Commander Henry Douglas
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Doyle, N. Grattan
Knights, Capt. H. N. (C'berwell, N.)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell. (Maryhill)


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Lloyd-Greame, Major P.
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Lorden, John William
Turton, E. R.


Fell, Sir Arthur
Lort Williams, J.
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Lowther, Lt.-Col. Claude (Lancaster)
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Gange, E. Stanley
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge)
Lynn, R. J.
Whitla, Sir William


Gilbert, James Daniel
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Goff, Sir R. Park
Mallalieu, F. W.
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Gould, James C.
Manville, Edward
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Younger, Sir George


Greene, Lieut.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.



Gregory, Holman
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Neal, Arthur
Lord Edmund Talbot and Captain Guest.


Guest, Major O. (Leic, Loughboro')
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Raper, A. Baldwin


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Edwards, Allen C. (East Ham, S.)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Mosley, Oswald



Glanville, Harold James
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Nield, Sir Herbert
Mr. Sitch and Mr. Bowerman.

Question put accordingly, "That the word" now "stand part of the Question."

Sir W. BULL: I beg to move,
"That it be an Instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be committed.

The House divided: Ayes, 131; Noes, 25.

Division No. 72.]
AYES.
[11.53 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Nield, Sir Herbert


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Guest, Major O. (Leic, Loughboro')
O'Connor, Thomas P.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.


Baldwin, Stanley
Hallwood, Augustine
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Hanna, George Boyle
Parker, James


Barlow, Sir Montague
Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin
Perring, William George


Barrie, Charles Coupar
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Purchase, H. G.


Benn, Com. Ian H. (Greenwich)
Hills, Major John Waller
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Betterton, Henry B.
Hinds, John
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Holmes, J. Stanley
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland
Hood, Joseph
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Borwick, Major G. D.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Brown, Captain D. C.
Hurd, Percy A.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Jameson, J. Gordon
Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Marylebone)


Butcher, Sir John George
Jephcott, A. R.
Soddon, J. A.


Camplon, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Cautley, Henry S.
Johnson, L. S.
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Chadwick, R. Burton
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.


Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole
Kidd, James
Stevens, Marshall


Curzon, Commander Viscount
Kiley, James D.
Stewart, Gershom


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
King, Commander Henry Douglas
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Doyle, N. Grattan
Knights, Capt. H. N. (C'berwell, N.)
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Lorden, John William
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell. (Maryhill)


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Lort-Williams, J.
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Fell, Sir Arthur
Lowther, Lt.-Col. Claude (Lancaster)
Turton, E. R.


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Gange, E. Stanley
Lynn, R. J.
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge)
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Gilbert, James Daniel
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Mallalieu, F. W.
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Goff, Sir R. Park
Manville, Edward
Younger, Sir George


Gould, James C.
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.



Lloyd-Greame, Major P.
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Greene, Lieut.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)
Neal, Arthur
Lord Edmund Talbot and Captain


Gregory, Holman
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Guest.




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Whitla, Sir William


Brittain, Sir Harry
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Glanville, Harold James
Mosley, Oswald
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)



Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Raper, A. Baldwin
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Sitch, Charles H.
Mr. Bowerman and Clement


Hartshorn, Vernon
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)
Edwards.


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)



Bill read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

after inquiry into the financial position of the various companies named in the Bill, to amend the Bill as follows:—

(a) So as to provide that the maximum powers of charge in excess of the fares which the companies are now authorised to charge shall not be
763
more than are required to provide from time to time for working expenses, efficiently maintaining and renewing the undertakings, and a reasonable return on capital;
(b) That workmen's return fares between any two stations shall not exceed the single ordinary fare for a journey between those stations, with a minimum fare of threepence."

Mr. C. EDWARDS: I desire to move as an Amendment, after the word "Bill" ["named in the Bill"], to insert the words "and Companies in Association therewith."
The object is that the inquiry shall be an exhaustive one to include the Companies controlled by the Combine.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir E. Cornwall): I do not think such an Amendment would be in order, as the Committee would have power to inquire into the Companies named in the Bill.

Mr. EDWARDS: In the Appendix to the Report of the Select Committee on Transport in the Metropolitan Area there are two lists given of companies controlled by the Underground Electric Rail ways of London, which is, of course, the combine. I suggest the words "all those companies which are controlled by the combine" and mentioned on page 367 of that Report.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I would ask the hon. and learned Member not to press those words. I felt it to be my duty to rule his proposed Amendment out of
Order, as I am quite sure the Committee have the power, as a matter of course, to take into consideration the companies mentioned by the hon. and learned Member as appearing in the Schedule.

Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be committed, after inquiry into the financial position of the various companies named in the Bill, to amend the Bill as follows:—

(a) So as to provide that the maximum powers of charge in excess of the fares which the companies are now authorised to charge shall not be more than are required to provide from time to time for working expenses, efficiently maintaining and renewing the undertakings, and a reasonable return on capital;
(b) That workmen's return fares between any two stations shall not exceed the single ordinary fare for a journey between those stations, with a maximum fare of threepence.—[Sir William Bull.]

METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL.— [By Order.]

Read a Second time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, upon Thursday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Six Minutes after-Twelve o'clock.